Skip to main content

About this Show

Capitol Hill Hearings





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17 (141 MHz)






Us 58, Boston 37, America 32, United States 18, Washington 14, U.s. 13, Mrs. Roby 8, Ms. Herrera Beutler 8, Mr. Gardner 8, Obama Administration 7, Alabama 7, Colorado 7, Russia 7, Makinglifework 5, The F.b.i. 5, Graham 5, New York 5, Indiana 5, Obama 5, Hina Shamsi 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Capitol Hill Hearings    News/Business.  

    April 23, 2013
    8:00 - 1:00am EDT  

spend the taxpayers' money, this is money that's collected from the gasoline and the diesel excise tax, that that money be spent on american made steel, con secrete -- concrete, bridges, buses, trains, whatever. it could work. one example, in the bill there was an opportunity for amtrak to buy new locomotives. about half a billion dollars to be spent on these new locomotives. in that section of law, one sentence was added that said these must be 100% american made. no one was making locomotives in america before that. but siemens, the german corporation, one of the biggest manufacturers in the world said, oh, half a billion dollar well, can make locomotives in america, sure. in sacramento, california, they opened a manufacturing plant, probably somewhere between 200 and 300 people working there
today manufacturing 100% american made locomotives and on may 134, three years after they began this process, the first 100% american made locomotive in probably more than a century rolled onto the tracks of america. we can do this. h.r. 549 will provide that opportunity, using american-taxpayer money. i have another bill that does the same for wind and solar projects. we can do these things and put our mind to it and get past this business of austerity. we cannot solve this problem of american jobs with an austerity budget. we see it failing here in europe and united states as the long-term unemployment continues to harm 4.5 million americans that have been out of work for six months and three million
that have been out of work for more than a year. we need an investment strategy, make it in america strategy, an investment strategy and those things that create long-term economic growth. i thank you for joining us. if you would like to wrap and i will wrap and call it a night. >> to mr. ryan: to me, it's about exciting the country and getting the country excited about what the future of america is all about and tax cuts for the top 1% of the people and austerity for the rest is not a vision for an exciting america that young people want to come into. and we want the private sector is going to be a huge part of this, but there are things that we need to start doing here. whatever the percentage is that the government's role is
investments, i don't know what that number is, but we aren't doing it. and there's no aspirational vision to excite young people to say, man, we're going to the moon. or we are going to go energy independent or high-spreed rail that will connect the entire country. the president has desperately tried to provide that vision only to be pulled down to the depths by some of the folks here who i think have a completely different agenda and that agenda doesn't align with the america that was built over the past century or so. mr. garamendi: i thank you so much for joining us this evening. we're still the strongest and best country in the world. there is no other place like america and if we begin acting like we can andr that is a --ong, robust, dynamic coubt
country. we can do it. we can build. we can invest and every time we invest a dollar into infrastructure, we put americans back to work and give them the opportunity to take care of their family and stay in their home and provide for their children's education. and when we do that, we create the foundation for future economic growth, whether it's education or research or building the infrastructure and making it in america. as we do these things, this agenda is the america agenda, the one that created this. it's the american history. it's there before us, we can do it and must do it and owe it to the american people. mr. speaker, we yield back our remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from alabama, mrs. roby, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mrs. roby: it is a privilege to speak for the next few minutes and hopefully have some other colleagues joining me but tonight is about making life work, making life work for american families. what are we doing on behalf of the american people here in the house of representatives to make life a little bit easier for working families, working moms and dads. and let me just say, you know, there are things across the board, whether it's health care issues, energy, reducing the
deficit and the debt for margaret and george matheson and future generations, all of those things add up and matter. i'm going to talk for a few minutes about one proposal that i have in front of the house of representatives that's going to come up for a vote here after we return from our district work week. before i do that, i want to tell you, mr. speaker, tonight that we are going to do something a little bit differently in an effort to engage individuals and their interests about making life work for american families. i just want to say, mr. speaker, that if someone wants to know more about what we're talking out tonight, the #on twitter is making life work. we want to hear from the people that we represent, mr. speaker, throughout our time on the floor tonight. o i would just say to you, mr.
speaker, that any individuals that would like to know what we are talking about or engage, it's #makinglifework. with that said, i would like to talk about before i introduce my colleagues who are going to engage in this conversation, the working families flexibility act of 2013, which is a bill designed to do what we are talking about is make life work, making life easier. i'm a working mom. and my husband and i both -- every week sit down and figure out what the plan is. we have an almost eight-year-old and four-year-old and we certainly understand the pull on the american family imbalancing the work week and our home life in supporting our children. and, mr. speaker, there are a
lot of families out there right now that would like choice in the workplace, hourly-wage employees that would like the choice in the private sector to exercise compensatory time, in lieu of time off cash wages. right now under the fair labor standards act, public employees -- public employers can offer to their employees that option. in 1985, the fair labor standards act was amended to allow that. private sector employees can't. so, again as a working mom who understands the pull on families, maybe that key ball game on friday at 4:00 or the p.t.a. meeting that's at 9:00 in the morning when my daughter's class is the one leading the
charge on the entertainment for the p.t.a. meeting, if i'm an hourly wage employee and i want to exchange paid overtime for paid time off, i cannot legally under the law do that with my employer. this amendment to the fair labor standards act allows for the private sector to do what the public sector is already doing. some of the opponents of this bill say the big bad employer would use this to coerce employees into taking comp. time rather than overtime pay. that is unlawful. the same protections that are in place currently under the fair labor standards act are the same protections that exist under our amendment preventing intimidation, coercion, discrimination by the employer on the employee. and the most important thing about this bill, it's voluntary.
the employee is the only person who can opt to exercise this option if the employer chooses to offer it. we know that this is not necessarily an option in every line of work. for example, if there's a manufacturer with 10 employees who actually make a product. if you pull one person off the line, they can't make the product. so it may not be a set. but for those who want to, this amendment allows for that individual to say to their employer, i would like to enter into a voluntary written agreement with you to use come compensatory time to bank 160 hours of compensatory time because time is more valuable than money to me. and the greatest protection in this bill is if, in fact, that employee determines at any time that this isn't working, i'm not
using my compensatory time or i can't find a time that works with my employer that fits, the time i want to take off, that employee, mr. speaker, that employee can say, i want to cash out. i want to cash out my compensatory banked time. let's say they have 60 hours, they can cash out and within 30 days their employer has to pay them time and a half overtime for that bank accrual of comp. time. this bill makes sense. this bill is about helping working families. this bill is about allowing that mom and dad that are balancing t-ball games and p.t.a. meetings as well as caring for their elderly parents, this bill is about military families getting ready for one spouse to deploy, to have the flexibility to do what they need to do.
this is one example about how we're making life work for american families. this bill doesn't solve our debt or deficit problems. i'm the first to admit that, but what this family does, it eases some of the hardships on our moms and dads in the work force and i'm really thrilled to be the current author of this bill. it has a long history. i'm excited about taking it to the floor in two weeks. again, mr. speaker, for those who want to know more in night's discussion it is #makinglifework and want to hear from americans who are affected and look forward to addressing those throughout the hour this evening. joining me tonight, i have the ntlelady from washington and
the gentleman from ohio. and i would like to open this open. you know currently serve on the energy and commerce committee and you have a couple of topics, but let's talk about making life work for american families when t comes to energy. >> i thank you for appealing to the american people so we can hear from them and have conversations with people who are struggling to make ends meet and make our economy work and define those things that are going to lead our country forward. it is a privilege to be here with you talking about ideas from the working families flexibility act that you are working hard on and i'm a proud co-sponsor but also ways we are going to find solutions for people across this country who are raising families, trying to pay for college trying to pay
the energy bill for the month. mr. gardner: we have an incredible opportunity to get government out of the way and let america work, to unleash the entrepreneurs around this great nation over the past several months over the past couple of years, we have held dozens of town meetings, whether they are in southeastern colorado, northeastern colorado, the denver metro area, the new parts of my district, talking to families, talking to people who are struggling to make ends meet. people who have had to pick up a second job just to pay the bills. and as we talk tonight about making life work and i believe #makinglifework and i would like to hear from people around the country how we an help be a part of these solutions.
. . as we work on policies like energy, to make sure energy is an affordable commodity, whether it's manufacturing, whether it's simply going home after work to turn the heat on, and a cold winter, i dove this morning from yuma, colorado, all the way to denver, it usually takes about two hours. this morning it took about four hours, thanks to another big snowstorm. but here we are late april, and the heat is on. and what we're doing to make energy affordable so that families can afford that. so that families in the middle of the summer can afford to run their air conditioner, drive to the family baseball game. it is about creating opportunity for families. and we have an incredible energy renaissance in this country. a revolution, really. when you're talking about energy, in eastern colorado we have seen new technologies that can produce american resources, that must and have to be a part of an all-of-the-above, an
all-american energy plan. an all-american energy plan that will rely on not somebody thousands of miles away from us, not on somebody overseas, but right in our own backyard. our neighborhoods -- our neighbors. maybe our family members. people in our communities who can produce the energy that we use each and every moment of our lives, to better the lives of our families, to create the next product that will ignite an entire economy. but we can't do that unless we have an affordable energy policy. and that's why an all-american energy plan is so important. and that's why it's an absolute and fundamental key to making life work for so many people across this country. what we can do with natural gas, a clean-burning fuel created right -- developed, extracted right in colorado, what we can do to use the oil, the wind power, the solar power that we are utilizing in colorado to make life work for families. and how does life work?
i think we're all facing that each and every day. we've got two kids, struggling to get from place to place, trying to make sure that -- whether it's our daughters' school work, whether it's our son trying to make sure he's figuring out how to ride the tricycle, he's young enough, we're trying to teach him that, but we're all struggling each and every day how we're going to make life work and part of it is energy. what where he can do to create a policy in this country that will develop a cheap, abundant, affordable policy that allows businesses to grow. and it's an exciting future that we face, knowing that we can do that right here in our own backyards. mrs. roby: right. i can tell you as a mom of two kids as well, every week that i get on a plane to come back to washington, there's a lot of planning that goes into it. and i put the gas in my car, i go to the grocery store. and when it comes to energy, i can watch energy prices affect the cost of food.
one of the things that i do every week, just to ease some of the juggle in our lives, is i try on the weekends to cook a few things. i love to cook. but i try to make life a little bit easier by having a few things in the refrigerator already made, that i do over the weekend. so usually my grocery store visit is on saturday and sunday. i tell folks that sometimes it can amount to a town hall. you get in the produce section and you have great conversations with your constituents. what the ee gentleman from colorado is saying, as the price of milk goes up, if gas prices are increasing, then the cost of food is affected. and so i can tell you and your wife would say the same thing, thanks for helping us in your role on energy and commerce. >> i'm glad you mentioned that.
i too believe that we need to be about the business of the american people. and helping them make life work. which means helping them in their day to day activities, not making it harder for folks to survive. ms. herrera beutler: i'm from southwest washington and in our neck of the woods, we have a lot of working class families. who are struggling to make eppeds meet. we all know people who -- ends meet. we all know people who have been or are unemployed, where one or both parents is out of work or one or both parents are trying to work, people who are working two jobs, and still, they're working longer and harder and not getting paid for it. so folks are draining their 401-k's to make their mortgage payments. this is the climate in which we find ourselves. that is why it is so, so, so important, like the gentleman from colorado said, that we employ an all-american energy strategy. and the irony is, we can do it here and now. there's no reason to wait. which is why i also have joined
the gentleman, we are on the house energy action team or the heat team, which is a group of like-minded members who believe we need that all-american energy approach and we need it now. you spoke to some natural gas issues. i'll tell you, in my neck of the woods in the great northwest, we get a majority of our energy from clean, renewable hydropower. and the best thing about this clean, renewable hydropower is it's inexpensive. compared with most other forms of energy, especially renewable energy. so not only is it carbon-less and it's clear -- carbonless and it's clean, but it's inexpensive and it is constantly renewed in our backyard. i wanted to point some of these things out because i don't believe hydropower always gets its due. especially among the renewables. but just as a baseload energy source in the nation, hydropower's america's largest source of renewable energy. it's american energy. it's produced in america, the jobs that go into producing it
are american jobs and it's utilized here in america. it makes up 65.9% of all renewable energy in the united states and it provides more than 30 million homes in the u.s. with inexpensive power. hydro is clean, it avoids nearly two million metric tons of carbon emissions every year. this is a tremendous opportunity for us. you know, it's not only important for families, it does keep our energy bills low and affordable. but it's important for manufacturing. you know, we have, in southwest washington, in my area, a growing tech sector. we traditionally have been known for our forests and our beautiful trees but we are also becoming known for our silicone forests. we're manufacturing chips. and one of the reasons some of the large chip manufacturers have come to southwest washington, as opposed to india or china, is because of the
inexpensive energy. because of the hydropower. we need to not only protect it but promote it as part of the all-of-the-above energy approach, which again is all-american energy. another area, when we're talking about -- i mentioned clean types of renewables, biomass. woody biomass as a byproduct of the timber that we have in the great northwest. it's another area where we can produce carbonless or low-form energy. and it's in our backyard. we have an abundant source. it's an american energy source. another byproduct of timber manufacturing is black liquor and this is not liquor that you drink, it's liquor that can go into helping produce energy. these are the types of ideas and solutions that are going to make energy affordable for the average american family. these are the types of solutions that cause us, rather than to put onerous rules and regulations on -- oh, i could
name a few that cause our energy to spike up and cause americans to pay more, these are the types of solutions that actually meet the environmental standards but also reduce the cost of the average power bill. i don't know about you, you could probably speak to this, but, man, our energy bills have gone through the roof. and there's no reason why when we've got american energy right here in our backyard. mrs. roby: sure. and i can reiterate all of the points that the gentlelady from washington makes and you're right. these are all things that contribute to making life work for american families. i just want to say, mr. speaker, as we're having this conversation, i am getting information that -- from folks that want to make life work and, mr. speaker, i want to remind all of us in this room that we remain committed to cutting spending and reducing the deficit and getting our debt under control.
this conversation really all encompasses just that. all of the families represented in this room tonight, they're the ones that we want to get this under control for. because, mr. speaker, we want this country to be great for them as it has for all of us. but at the same time there are things that fall under federal jurisdiction that we can be doing to make -- ease the burden on american working moms and dads. and that's the things that we're talking about tonight. the working family flexibilities act of 2013, energy solutions that are out there. we're going to talk about health care and tax reform but we're joined by mr. young from indiana and thank you for coming and please join the conversation. mr. young: it's great to be with the gentlelady and thank you so much for having me. does this gentlelady yield here in mrs. roby: we don't have to yield. you just call.
mr. young: ok, well, great. just like -- this is the great american family room, if you will. we're sitting around, having a family conversation. the people's conversation about making life work. and i would absolutely agree. there are a lot of dimensions to this topic. we have to get our spending under control. republicans have put forward a bold budget to make that happen. bring our budget into balance within just 10 years. we need to stop imposing overly costly, overly burdensome regulations on american families, american businesses. and so on. we of course need to take a look at our energy policy and open up this bounty of resources here in this country. and there's a whole variety of different ones. my colleague from washington, the gentlelady just spoke to some in her region. of course in my region, coal remains a viable and important resource, but we're finding increasingly that my constituents, in indiana's ninth district, are enjoying the benefits of natural gas and
very affordable natural gas. we happen to have oil and gas resources in this country, by some reckoning, that are larger than iran, iraq and saudi arabia combined. this will make the united states of america a net energy exporter within just 10 years. so, that is a blessing that again, once again, republicans are leading with respect to harnessing these resources we have. of course our human resources are another thing that we could touch on. but really my point of emphasis, since i'm on the ways and means committee, this evening is going to be tax reform. we just finished getting through yet another tax day and i'm sure my colleagues heard from their constituents just how convoluted and complicated and frustrating and unfair this tax code can be to working families. you know, i was struck by --
there's this notion of tax freedom day. that some of our colleagues and certainly our constituents are aware of. this is when we as hardworking taxpayers stop paying the federal government and can start working for ourselves. and it fell on april 18 this year. 3 1/2 months into the year is when our taxpayers stopped paying the federal government and could start working for themselves and their families. that suggests to me that we need to work on all fronts to grow this economy more and also to lighten the burden of taxation wherever possible. tax simplification is something i'll get into in a little bit. but -- and that's part of our overall tax reform effort. but with that i'll yield to my good friend from colorado, perhaps you have other thoughts on taxation or other things that are related to our making life work theme tonight. mr. gardner: i thank the gentleman from indiana for coming and joining us on the
floor tonight. and, mr. speaker, as we've said, there are people across the country who are joining the conversation about making life work. they're sending tweets with the #makinglifework. hearing from people who are indeed talking about tax reform on this very issue. talking about what it means to work under a tax code that can be pro-job creation, that can lift the burden on american families by creating a fairer, flatter system. whether you're a small business who's just getting started, or you're a small business that's been around for a while, the fact is the more the burden you pay from the government, whether it's a higher income tax or you're a subchapter s and you're paying at the individual level, that's less money that you get to spend investing into job creation, into expanding your employees, the number of people you have working for you, the salaries that you can provide for them, the insurance, the benefits that you can provide. so, really tonight's discussion about making life work is about what we're doing to create a fair system that looks out for
everyone, that looks out for people who are making minimum wage, so that they won't be making minimum wage for long. they'll be getting a pay increase because their business is growing, because their salaries are able to get higher because they're more successful in developing a product and manufacturing. and so a tax code that is pro-growth, pro-growth economics can lead to that. i know you're in a great position to lead that discussion. mrs. roby: i just want to say to both of the gentlemen, you know, what we're talking about tonight is kitchen en table stuff, right? -- kitchen table stuff, right? so marines all across this country -- so americans all across this country country sit down at the table with their loves ones and balance their budget. why do we hold the federal government to any standard other than that? we're addicted to spending, we are on an unsustainable path for the next generation, tax reform, energy, removing burdens on the working family, these are all such important
concepts to making life work for american families. we're joined by another colleague, i just want to introduce our newly elected member of the house of representatives joining us in the 213th congress, mrs. wagner from missouri, so the gentlelady from missouri, please join us in this conversation and offer us your perspective. mrs. wagner: talking about making life better and for working americans across this country. i'm a proud freshman member of the 113th congress and we were elected to tackle the big problems and no bigger problem than getting hard-working americans back to work with the skills they need during this tough economy. today, the federal government currently operates more than 50 different job-training programs, many of which are duplicative at
a cost of $18 billion annually to taxpayers. with nearly 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, it's time to cut through the red tape and start training individuals with the skills they need to find high-paying, middle-class jobs. that's why this house in the 113th congress passed the skills act and streamlines job training programs, including many that were identified by the government accountability office and eliminates unnecessary red tape so state and local resources go directly to help those that are actually seeking jobs. according to a report released by st. louis, by the community colleges there, 76% of employers found that workers lacked the proper training to contribute right away and the most in-demand certificates were for
registered nurses. it's time we start investing in nurses, medical assistants, manufacturing technicians, computer support specialists and jobs and stop wasting billions of dollars on ineffective jobs that do little to train individuals with the skills they need to succeed. i believe it is time, past time for the senate to take up this skills act to do its job, pass commonsense legislation and put america back to work #making lifework. mrs. roby: and again, kitchen-table stuff, we have to balance our budget. everybody here tonight voted in favor of a budget that would balance in 10 years. we understand that that's the
key. but the government regulation -- gentlelady guys, the from washington, i have love for you because you have great examples, but we get on the plane or get in our cars and go home for the week and going to be with our small business owners and with our employees. quite frankly, the employers, they provide the jobs. the employees, we need to spend a little more time talking about the moms and dads making it work and they are the ones that are suffering at the hands of these duplicative programs that are sucking up taxpayer dollars where at the end of the day we could help american families. ms. herrera beutler: here's the thing that is frustrating to me and every american. e look at congress and -- we
were reminded recently, hundreds of thousands of dollars from each community, millions of each community here to washington, d.c. and they expect us to do something with that money or send it back. the gentlelady from alabama mentioned the fact that we voted on for the first time this house republican congress voted on a budget that balances within a decade. it shouldn't be novel, but it is. every family that is watching us right now is, you guys are patting yourselves on the back for that? every state legislature does it every year but it was novel to do it here. when members of our congress got to sit down with the president a month or so ago and we asked him about his budget that he released to the american people, his budget doesn't balance ever. and we know why this is
important. it's because balancing the budget will help us grow jobs. balancing the budget will help american families grow and thrive and prosper and will help businesses grow and hire more people. we know that a bloated government that then keeps coming back and says i want more of this, you are my biggy bank, we know that kills jobs, which is why it's pretty simple. we need to do what every family does, balance our budget so more jobs can grow and america can thrive. mr. gardner: making life work boils down to the issue of fairness of what's happening to our families, our businesses, our neighbors as the debt grows, as taxes grow. the fact is, it is absolutely unfair to pass on so many unanswered problems to the next generation, to pass on 5 -- $52,000 worth of debt to our kids to our 18 month old son or
nine-year-old daughter, it's unfair to them and future generations. ms. herrera beutler: we look at prosperity and talking about the next generation and we should. i will argue it is unfair to today's generation, to the 67 -year-olds who just retired and has a 401k, the inflation is going to hit him and his wife who are savers and unfair to a teacher in a public school classroom when the federal government makes promises it cannot keep, it overspends and then it's going to cut her hours, add to her class sizes. all we have to do is look at greece and cyprus. it will happen. mrs. roby: i'm sorry to open another door but it is important
what you heard on airplanes today about the sequester and what's going on in defense spending, can we talk about our military families? talking about making life work, the people that we have a direct charge to make life work for is protecting all americans, but those who sacrifice on behalf of all of our freedoms and their families, our military men and women, and i'm going to circle back to the working families flexibility act of 2013, think about that military mom or dad that's getting ready to deploy and they are an hourly-wage employee and don't have under the current law the option to exercise compensatory time but their spouse is about to leave to afghanistan and have to get their house in order and got to have flexibility to handle life outside of their job, whether
it's their children or the aging parents while their spouse is deployed. let's talking about making sure those men and women as they are deployed have everything that they need to accomplish the mission that we've given them. and yet, through the sequester, we know that we are going to have a smaller force. and our commanders say, not less capable, but we are going to have to make some tough decisions about where we are in the world and what we can do with our capabilities. all you have to do is go to the military installations closest to your home and look into the eyes of that spouse whose family member is currently deployed and it will change our outlook as it should. making life work for military families, making life work for margaret and george, that's what
we are talking about tonight, mr. speaker. i just want to remind, throughout this discussion, we e looking at on twitter, #makinglifework. and the gentleman from indiana. mr. young: well, you said so many things that really strike a cord with me and based on my consultations and visits with my constituents. one is the funding, essential functions of government. we are the party of smart government and put forward specific proposals in order to rationalize different departments and make things work more efficiently and more bang for our buck in every department of government and avoid the duplication and wastefulness that so alienates so many of our constituents. there's nothing we can do that would more undermine the
credibility of government as an institution and the federal government in particular than to waste money and spend it in areas where constituents don't want us to spend it. our national defense is essential. that benefits working families on a daily basis and benefits our military families and all of us and that's something we have to be very careful with as we approach these different fiscal challenges. i applaud my colleague. mrs. roby: pull out your copy of the constitution and what does it say, our charge as members of congress is to provide for a strong national dens and if we're not taking care of those men and women and uniform who have fought for the very freedoms that allow us to stand in this room today and talk about making life work, if we don't have enough respect for that to do our job in congress and set priorities when it comes to wasteful spending on behalf of them, then we all need to take a long hard look at ourselves in the mirror.
mr. gardner: my constituents and yours, too, they don't mind paying taxes. . ey get the sense mr. young: we are spending no more than required. they wouldn't mind paying their fair share of taxes if in fact complying with the tax code were a simple exercise and one that is seen by most americans to be a fair exercise. but having just past tax day, ll share a couple of semi-humorous comments about what the american family can do instead of filing taxes if they had taken all those 13 hours on average per american family and instead been able to use that themselves. instead of filling out their tax code could have watched the entire "harry potter" movie
series twice and still time for "hunger games." or watched all three "star wars" movies three times or could have lost weight. if the time was spent in a spinning class, the average american could lose 14 pounds per man and 11 pounds per woman. they could fly between hong kong and new york three times. this illustrates how darn painful complying with this convoluted tax code can be. our tax code in a way makes those who sit down at the kitchen table and do their own taxes, some people have to hire a tax preparer, but it makes the average american either a pork in one hand or sucker in the other. consider the case of john and jane. john and jane are neighbors and make the exact same amount in personal income, but john is
going to itemize his deductions and takes several deductions. jane, on the other hand, she takes the standard deduction and fairly limited credits. now, john is left feeling like a crook. he might feel like he has run afoul of the law and done his best to follow it but he might feel like a crook as a result of the whole tax exercise. jane knows that john pays far less in taxes. jane feels like a sucker. what sort of code makes you feel like a crook or a sucker? we have to stop this nonsense and simplify the rates and that's what we are doing in the ways and means committee and i invite our democrat colleagues. i see a lot of room for common ground and i hope they will join us in this exercise. mrs. roby: to the gentleman from
indiana, we appreciate the hard work on the ways and means committee and all of us look forward to helping making life work for american families through a fairer and simpler tax code that does just that. ms. herrera beutler: that's part of what we are here to talk about tonight. i think the gentlelady may have some comments on that. . . . we do need a tax code that is fairer, that is simpler, that we don't have to hire accountants and lawyers and go through thousands of pages of code in order to comply with the law. we must remain competitive in society. we must cut through the kind of red tape. and whether it's lowering tax rates for hardworking americans and business and job creators, or whether it has to do with cutting through overregulation, which is running rampant
through our government, we we've got to do things -- we've got to do things that's cut -- that cuts waste and not workers. that's why making life work for americans is so very important. balancing our budget, living within our means. i will tell you, every family, every hardworking middle class family in the second district are working hard to figure out, you know, how to make those tennis shoe it's la -- tennis shoes last another six months. the dishwasher may be broken but they'll wash them in the sink until they've got the money to pay for it. there are private sector job creators, there are working families everywhere, there are state governments that are living within their budget, living within our means. it's time that the federal government balanced their budget and lives within their means. and only the house budget balances within a 10-year period of time and cuts the kind of waste that needs to be cut instead of cutting workers
and making sure that the american dream is available for all americans. ms. herrera beutler: i think this is one of the challenges we're facing. all americans are looking at congress saying, why, why is it that we're sending all this money to washington, d.c., why are we having to live within our means and the federal government doesn't? in fact, what they see is the federal government cutting direct services, whether it's to military families, whether it's services in airports, whether it's security at parks, they're not cutting the fat, it's a little bit frustrating to me. the i.r.s. operates a 24/7 satellite tv studio in their building, across the street from the i.r.s., the e.p.a. operates its own 24/7 satellite studio to the tune of $4 million a year. rather than maybe combine those like the re, it seems administration's cutting those services that americans expect
and have already paid for. it's really time that the federal government learns to live within its means because it's going to help us grow jobs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas stand? mr. burgess: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 175, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1549, to amend public law 111-148, to transfer fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2016 funds from the prevention and public health fund to carry out the temporary high-risk health insurance pool program for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and tokes tend access to such -- and to extend access to such program to such individuals who have coverble coverage, for coverage through such program. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.
the gentleman from washington may proceed -- the gentlelady from washington may proceed. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to remind you, mr. speaker, that tonight we are grateful to be on the floor talking about making life work and, mr. speaker, one of the ways that we're doing that tonight is engaging our constituents through #makinglifework. we want to hear, as we continue through this discussion from the people from missouri's second district or alabama's second district or all the other districts represented in this room, mr. speaker, we want to hear from those folks as we continue this conversation tonight, about how to make life work on behalf of americans. as i've talked about on several occasions tonight, the working families flexibility act, which will be on the floor for a vote in two weeks, this is about a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee, only at the option of the employee, in the private sector, which is
currently not legal, and the private sector removing this regulation so that employee has the opportunity to say, you know what, time is more precious to me. with a working mother -- as a working mother with two small kids, i get that, i can relate to that, and this bill is about allowing in the private sector that employer and that employee to come to an agreement and that employee exercising their right to say, i'd rather have comp tied, paid time off, than overtime payment and cash payments. so we're talking about not just through tax reform or energy or health care, all of these things that have been discussed tonight. we're talking about how do we make life just a little bit easier for hardworking tax paying americans? they sit around their kitchen tables, balance their budgets, live within their means. and the federal government quite frankly doesn't do that. and we should be held to that
same standard. mr. gardner: one of the things i hear constantly from around the district and around the country about making life work is what we're doing to get crid credit to businesses who are hoping -- credit to businesses who are hoping to expand. i just heard this through some comments on #makinglifework, people responding to the conversation that we are having. worried about credit issues, worried about what's happened to their small businesses. i've introduced legislation that would create a small business savings account, to make sure that we can incentivize people to save money, and to put directly into job creation so that they will be able to save and have some benefit for that savings by actually not paying a tax on the gain when they invest it into a savings account or om sore kind of savings or -- or some other kind of savings or investment vehicle. other people have contacted us about regulations. you mentioned regulations. and i think it goes back again to that very issue of fairness. what we are doing to look out for people who don't have a voice.
and to look out -- please. mr. young: you struck a cord when you said regulations. we know what the american people want. they want fewer hassles, fewer burdens. fewer mandates from on hifmente they want more flexibility, -- on high. they want more flexibility, more walking-around cash, they want more choices, they want more hope for themselves and their children and grandchildren. so, with respect to regulatory reform, this impacts daily lives in a very big way. we typically hear about it in the context of how it's going to hurt your corporations or sometimes your small businesses. but i happen to represent a district with a lot of rural areas in it. and not a week goes by that i don't hear a farmer complaining about some of the regulations in the pike. week of had recent attempts by our federal government -- we've had recent attempt business our federal government to regulate milk spills like oil spills and to regulate the dust that comes across fields in rural areas.
mrs. roby: my farmers in alabama are very, very familiar with all those regulations. and we've worked hard through the committee on agriculture to do all that we can to remove that heavy hand of the federal government. our farmers just want to farm. let me tell you, when we talk about national security, the day that our farmers in the united states of america can't feed not just the world but can't feed america, you want to talk about a national security interest and those are great examples of how we can remove that -- those regulatory burdens. mr. young: and how we can make life work for our regular american families, our american workers and even our companies. because after all, this is where most of my constituents are employed. sometimes large companies, sometimes small companies. with respect to regulations, we have tried a whack-a-mole approach. we do our best with respect to oversight. sometimes we do better than others. and we try and prevent certain executive departments from actually implementing a given
regulation or which change the law so that the regulation -- or we change the law so that the regulation can't move forward. that's hard to do. but i think we need to be thinking ambitiously here about changing the entire regulatory system. so, i put forward, i introduced early this year a bill that was originally authored by geoff davis, a republican from kentucky, called the reansafpblgt what the reans act -- reins act. what the reins act does is it establishes a $100 million threshold. every time the e.p.a. or osha puts forward a rule or regulation that is determined will have $100 million or more on economic impact on our multitrillion-dollar economy, that rule or regulation has to go before congress for an up or down d vote -- up or down vote. what effect would this have? this would slow down the regulatory process which is good. washington needs to deliberate before it acts. we can still regulate. but we need to deliberate before we act. but perhapses most importantly,
in the -- perhaps most importantly in the end, this would allow our constituents to blame us for these painful and costly regulations rather than unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. we want to be accountable. mrs. roby: absolutely. wag wag it puts the job back in the people's -- mrs. wagner: it puts the job back in the people's house. this isn't governance by fiat. we were sent here to pass the commonsense legislation and to get the government off the backs and out of the way of hardworking americans across this country. and truthfully, the overregulation, the overburden on business and industry is passed along to everyone across america. every worker, every family is paying the cost of this overregulatory burden. and whether it's the debt and deficit, whether it's tax reform, whether it's flexibility for families, you know, whether it's living
within our means, i'm finished with mortgaging our children's future and i agree with the gentlewoman from washington, i'm tired of mortgaging today. it's not just about the future, it's about mortgaging what's happening right now. mr. young: i'm hearing from people who want more independence. this isn't a top-down government approach, this is a bottom-up people approach. mr. gardner: what we can do with technology to make sure that we're allowing innovation to occur, economies to grow. mrs. roby: how about, week of been on this floor, you know, for the past couple of years and glad to have our new colleagues join us tonight, but we've all given examples and one of my favorite example, although it's not funny, it's real, is this -- the owner of the construction company that came to one of my nfib round table discussions back in the district during a district workweek and he said, let me give you this as an example. the regulator drives by my job
site and there was a ladder propped up against the eve and this was like, let's say it was to make an $800 profit off of this construction job, and his workers have been going up and down the ladder every day, safely, and the regulator on their way home from their job slows down, because it happened to be on his street, and he says, that ladder does not meet regulation. this guy gets slapped with like an $8,000 fine on a job that he only stood to make an $800 profit. that is not making life work. and this administration and our colleagues in the senate have got to wake up to what we're doing, strangling small businesses. but again, it's not just about the employer. i think we've got to remember and remind ourselves that it's not just about the employer,
they create the jobs, we get that and we applaud that. we want to make it as easy for people to create jobs as we can in this country, because innovation is what this country is about. it's all about that hardworking employee. and we've got to remember that clearing this regulatory environment, it helps that american family. it helps that american family when they're sitting around their dinner table and they're trying to make life work. again, real quick, week of got a few more minutes. i just want to remind, mr. speaker, tonight we are hoping to receive input from our constituents at #makinglifework . throughout our conversation tonight we've been hearing from folks who have been reminding us of issues that are important to them and i think this is, mr. speaker, a very unique opportunity to have this onversation. ms. herrera beutler: we thank the gentlelady from alabama for putting this special order together and for really care being all americans and about
what's important to them, as you said, sitting around the kitchen tables, it's about making life work. and at the end of the day, that's what government ought to be doing. getting out of the way, off their backs, working for the people, not against them. mr. gardner: i hope that tonight's conversation will continue, that it's not just an hour before the house of representatives, but this is a conversation that people will be able to talk about and continue and that the feedback that they provide through #makinglifework will continue to come to us, to talk about ways and ideas that we can truly move this country forward and so, mr. speaker, thank you for the opportunity to do this as we talk about these ideas. we've mentioned several of them here. as feedback has rolled in from around the country. mrs. roby: one of the things we haven't really spent time on and if the gentlelady from washington wants to talk about, is the health care and things that we are doing to make sure that, you know, american families have the access. i think we can all agree that
we want health care to be more affordable and more accessible for all americans. but as we move closer and closer to the full implementation of obamacare in 2014, we're finding that that doesn't work. ms. herrera beutler: we're starting to hear from the folks that we serve in our districts and in our states, folks with pre-existing -- serious pre-existing conditions are being turned away from a high-risk pool that was promised. mrs. roby: the president himself promised it. ms. herrera beutler: that was part of the health care bill the president passed if we do this, no one will be turned away with a pre-existing condition, today, right now, people with serious pre-existing conditions are being told basically by the obama administration, sorry, we didn't plan for you. mr. gardner: and i understand
the money republicans would propose to spend to address this -- mr. wrung: and i understand the money the republicans would spend on this issue, the obama administration wants to spend on advertising, advertising the exchanges, dvertising how the obamacare will work. >> this is the helping sick americans act. tomorrow we're going to defund the preventive care act, the slush fund in the affordable care act that has been going for everything from paths and bike paths and advertising campaigns and spaying and neutering dogs, instead we're going to move that money, defund it, pay down about $8 billion on the deficit and we're going to move money into
these high-risk pools that are run by the states that are going to take care of sick americans. mrs. roby: and we look forward to that debate in the next two days. we are closing in on the end of our hour, we are just joined by mr. griffin, the gentleman from arkansas and as you know, we are talking about tonight, this is ht makinglivework for american families. - hs #-- this is #makinglifework for american families. >> he's going to tell us where our money is going, how bad the debt is and how it's affecting our children and grandchildren. >> thank you for that introduction, tim. what i'm concerned about is because we haven't gotten our if fiscal house in order, we're not able to invest in a lot of
things like medical research and roads and education the way we need to be to prepare for he future. mr. griffin: i want their america to be as good as the america i grew up in. to do that we have to invest in things. i call this the pacman problem. 2/3 of our budget is on auto pilot, it's mander to spending, medicare, medicaid, social security and interest make up the mandatory spending. this is money that's basically spent without congressional approval because it's written into the law. and unless we save and strengthen those programs, represented by the yellow here, then they're going to go bankrupt and they're going to crowd out the investments we need to make that will help families and help grow our economy. so basically, pacman eventually will swallow all the investment up.
when it does, all the spending for medical resedge, scientific development and all these other things will go away. we've got to get that under control or fur -- for our families. mrs. roby: thank you, i thank the gentleman from arkansas, i know you ran to get here, our time is up and mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time is up. thank you. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker.
i must say how proud i am of the members of congress who came in in the class two years ago and those coming in now. it's an honor to serve with those who care so much about the country and where we're going. to know where we're going, it's important to know where we've been. over the last week or so, we have endured terrible heartache because it wasn't just boston that was attacked, it wasn't just the little town of west, texas, that lost so many people. e pluribus unum, out of many, one. when tragedy strikes, we come together as one people to mourn. that's been true in the past, that's why social security so heartbreaking when americans
note that some gloat when other americans are killed. thank goodness it's such a rare thing. , th the tragedies in boston the horror of the explosion and fire down in west, down in bill flores' district, we continue to pray for those who are enduring such suffering, for those who have lost loved ones. there's no easy way to lose a loved one. everyone in america has either lost a loved one or will. when it happens, it allows you to empathize and sympathize so much more easily with those who ave lost loved ones. an grieve, we mourn, and
important after-tragedy aspect for those who are in government, is to make sure that we figure out exactly what went wrong that that -- so that americans are spared this tragedy in the future. a former secretary of state once asked, in the aftermath of a tragedy over which he was overseing the department, what difference does it make? having had embassies attacked before and yet this embassy, this consulate, rather, in benghazi, was not adequately protected, it raises very serious issues and the answer should be very clear. when the question is, what difference does it make, it
makes a difference in not having to console those who have lost and mourned -- and mourn with those who have lost and console and help those who are trying to heal. it means all of that suffering doesn't happen if we find a mis-- find the mistakes and make sure they are not replicated in the future. it was difficult, continues to be difficult, to get information out of the state department, out of homeland security, having questioned the secretary of homeland security myself and found that she couldn't even answer how many members of the muslim brotherhood were part of her closest advisory council, the homeland security advisory council or you know, what backgrounds people had that would indicate ties to the muslim brotherhood within her
countering violent extremism working group. it's called countering violent extremism working group because heaven forbid we should offend anyone trying to kill us and wants to destroy our way of life. it's also interesting as we dig in the situation, i've been hammered in the last week and accused of being an intolerant racist simply because people didn't know the facts when they leveled such allegations. i don't expect any apologies as they find out the truth, but yes, there have been radical islamists who were known to have changed their islamic surname to a his pan ex-sounding name and falsified their identification documents so they would appear to be
hispanic and then make their way across our southern border. nothing racist in that. in fact, it actually can be construed as a compliment because these people knew that radical islamists were not wanted in this country and that this country most of us are greatly appreciative of the heritage that the hispanics bring. as i've said many times, i think something that is -- has been a foundational part of making america great has been, generally speaking, with hat tip to atheists and all the other religions in america, traditionally there was a faith in god, there was a devotion to family, and there was a hard work ethic and generally
speaking that's what i see more than any other things in the his pan exculture. i'm hoping that culture will help revive those aspects in our american culture. so it is certainly not intended as a snub, and in fact, it's just stating a fact, it's just something that occurred. but it's always apparently a fun game for liberals to preach about tolerance and then be the most intolerant people in the country when it comes to conservatives or conservative christians. jesus told us 2,000 years ago, you'll suffer for my sake. i didn't suffer as a christian growing up but some are all too willing to oblige nowadays to make sure that christians do suffer, that they are persecuted, that they are condemned for their religious
briefs. and they go after christians in a way they would never seek to condemn even radical islamists. but i hope that out of the disaster in the -- and the heartbreak and the harm, damage, that came, not just to boston, massachusetts, but to a central heartbeat of america in boston, such an important, integral part of america, we all got hit on 9/11, we got hit as americans when our consulate was hit and four americans were killed in libya, we got hit when rebels took the weapons that this administration helped provide and killed americans in algeria. we all take a hit when there are mistakes in judgment.
mistakes in judgment like helping bomb gaddafi even though this administration had agreements with him, he was providing intel on radical islamic terrorists, that source is gone now and this administration, despite being warned by many of us, look, we know there are al qaeda actually embedded in the revolutionaries, don't help until we know who we're help, but this administration made clear it didn't need congressional approval, it did not need congressional authority, it had been asked to help by the islamic, the organization islam excouncil and by nato so forget what congress, all the elected representatives of the people of texas and all 49 other states and all of the territories, forget what they
think. i'll just do what i want. i am proud to count michael as a aycy -- mulcasey friend, i admered him as a judge in many cases but particularly at the trial of the blind sheikh after the bombing of the world trade cent for the 1993. he did a great job. and the prosecutors did great jobs. and -- andrew mccarthy should ever have the thanks and acclaim he deserves instead of the condemnation he often gets. when you're around andrew mulcasey, michael no matter what your i.q. is, the average is quite high.
as the former attorney general, former federal judge, he said in his article that was printed april 21, by "the wall street journal," there's so many fantastic points that need to be brought out, these are michael mccasey's words, he said if you're concerned about he threat posed by the tsaernaev is limited to ensuring they'll never be able to repeat their grissly act -- -- their grisly act, rest easy, named er one, apparently ter an early ruler who enemies' skulls is dead, and the younger is
injured and will be tried, no doubt there will be some problems with the questions out receiving miranda warnings but the only downside is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. this is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during the last week's terror in boston. . but if your concern is over the larger threat in who the tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did and what they represent, then worry a lot. for starters, you you can worry about how the high-value intergage group or h.i.g., will do its work. that unit was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber
tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of north america, and other self-proclaimed spokesmen for merican muslim, the f.b.i. has battlerized its train materials. does this delicacy infect the f.b.i.'s interrogation group as well? will we see another performance like the army's after-action report following major d.a. nidal hasan's rampage at fort hood in 2009, proceeded by his
report alahu akbar, a that spoke nothing of militant islam, but referred to the incident as workplace violence. if tone is set at the top, recall that the army chief of staff at the time said the most tragic result of fort hood would be if it interfered with he army's diversity program. presumably the investigation into the boston terror attack will include inquiry into not only the immediate circumstances of the crime, but so who funded tamerlan tsarnaev's month-long so he journal abroad in 2012 and his comfortable lifestyle. did he have a supportive network? what training did he and perhaps his younger brother receive in the use of weapons? where did the elder of the two
learn to make the suicide vest he reportedly wore? the investigation should include as well a deep dive into tamerlan's radicalization. the islamist references in the brother's social media communications and the jihadist websites they visited. will the investigation probe as well the f.b.i.'s own questioning of tamerlan two years ago at the behest of an unspecified foreign government, presumably russia, over his involvement with jihaddy websites and other activities? tamerlan tsarnaev is the fifth person since 9/11 who has participated in terror attacks after being questioned by the f.b.i. e was preceded by nidal hasan, drone casualty anwr an all i can, abdul hakim muhammad, born carlos he willon bledsoe, --
leon bledsoe, who murdered an army recruit in little rock in june, 2009, and david headley who provided intelligence to the perpetrators of the mumbai massacre in 2008. that doesn't count, the subject of warnings to the c.i.a., that he was a potential terrorist. if the intelligence yielded by the f.b.i.'s investigation is of value, will that value be compromised when his trial is held as it most certainly will be in a civilian court? dokedoke's lawyers will seek to ctor doke tsarnaev's lawyers will seek that. to show that his late brother was the dominant conspirator who had access to resources and people. there's also cause for concern in that this was obviously a suicide operation. not in the direct way of a bomber who kills all of his victims and himself at the same
time by blowing himself up, but in the way of someone who conducts a spree, holding the stage for as long as possible before he's cut down in a blaze of what he believes is glory. here think mumbai. until now it's been widely accepted in law enforcement circles that such an attack in the u.s. was less likely because of the difficulty that organizers would have in marshalling the spiritual support to keep the would-be suicide focused on the task. that analysis went out the window when the tsarnaevs followed up the bombing of the marathon by murdering a police ficer in his car, an act certain to precipitate the violent confrontation that followed. it has been apparent that with all -- with al qaeda unable to mount elaborate attacks like the one it carried out on 9/11, other islamists have stepped in with smaller and less intricate
crimes but crimes that are nonetheless meant to send a terrorist message. these include shazad who failed to detonate a device in times square in 2010 and would be the subway bomber -- the would-be subway bomber and his con federates. is this, as former c.i.a. director michael hayden put it, the new normal? there's also cause for concern in the president's reluctance soon after the boston bombing, even to use the t word, terrorism, in his vegas muings on friday about -- vague musings on friday about some unspecified agenda of the perpetrators. when by then there was no mystery. the agenda was jihad. for five years we have heard principally from those who wield executive power, of a claim need to make fundamental changes in this country to change the world's, particularly the muslim
world's, perception of us to press the reset button. we have not heard a word from those sources suggesting any need to understand and confront a totalitarian ideology that has existed since at least the founding of the muslim brotherhood in the 1920's. the ideology has regarded the united states as its principle adversary since the late 1940's, when a brotherhood principal visited this country and was aghast at what he saw as its deck dance. the first world trade center bombing in 1993, al qaeda attacks on american embassies 98 nya, tanzania and in and on the u.s.s. cole in 2011 and the dozen years since where all -- were all fueled by islamist hatred for the ugs and its values. their muslim organizations in this country such as the american islamic forum for
democracy, headed by a consider, that speak out bravely against the totalitarian ideology. they receive no shoutout at presidential speeches, no outreach is extended to them. one of the tsarnaev sbrrs dow dead. the other might as well be. but if that isment the limit of our concern there will be others. michael mckasey is a great patriotic american. a brilliant american. and now we have those who have told us that we must pass gun control legislation that most of them even acknowledge would not have affected the horror at sandy hook at all. but they say you must pass gun control legislation for the benefit, for the -- in the memory of sandy hook, utilizing
that horrible murder spree to try to justify their political agenda. my first question is, will the legislation you're proposing, would it have changed the outcome at sandy hook or in colorado or any of the mass murders? and when the proponents say no, it wouldn't have changed sandy hook at all, then the next question is, all right, then what other legislation do you have? something that might make a difference. don't bring things that won't make a difference other than further your political agenda. let's do something to change what has happened in the past so it won't happen in the future. so now we're told, oh, gee, you should not use the boston bombing as a wake-up call to make sure that we look more closely at people coming in who might want to harm us. the f.b.i. got a heads up from
russia for heaven's sake, and i understand they would have viewed the russians' complaint and their information with a set aside because they don't care for the chechens anyway. but they got a heads up. and we've already seen and i can't go into what was classified, shouldn't have been, shouldn't be classified, but all of the documents that have been purged from the f.b.i. training materials because we had heard and read and found out from people involved in the f.b.i. that they're eliminating words. and i've had a chart up here that explained that under the 9/11 report, the word islam and jihad and radical, these are words that were used commonly in the 9/11 report but since then, since we had a new president and a new regime and new justice department under attorney general eric holder,
and since the f.b.i. had partnered with care, one of the two known as the federal court in dallas and then the fifth circuit court of appeals that said the two largest muslim brotherhood front organizations, care, council on american islamic relations, and isna, the islamic society of north america, those are the two largest front organizations for the muslim brotherhood, and this administration had embraced them. and responds to them regularly and has the president of isna to the white house, has him to the state department, has -- gets his input on things of importance. so we have muslim brotherhood front organization members leading, guiding, directing this administration. they kept telling the president, apparently from what we've seen, because certainly that's what the president, the secretary of state clinton, others came out and said, hey,
they don't dislike the administration, just don't watch them burn the president in effigy, no, they love him. but it's just they're mad about a video or they're mad about perceptions of the u.s. they love our president. well, read the polls overseas. you'll find out that's not the case. but for those who say, look, the lesson from boston ought to be that we need to rush through at least 11 million some think it might be as high as 20 million people who are in this country illegally and make them legal as quick laze possible because that will allow us a complete and thorough report on these people. but i would humbly submit, if the f.b.i. is still using the purged lexicon where they can't talk about jihad or can't talk about all of the things that were removed from their training manuals and f.b.i. agents were told they couldn't
use anymore, how do you go question a proponent of killing americans, a proponent of radical murderous jihad without talking about jihad? without talking about the words that radical islamists use? that must have been quite an interrogation of the now deceased tamerlan. since they couldn't use the words that would have told him what he really believed in. and now an f.b.i. agent that's so overworked that they couldn't even do a proper investigation of a guy after russia gives them a heads up and gives them information and now the solution we're told is to bring in 11 million more, rush them by the f.b.i., and then we'll know whether they're terrorist, you think? or are we going to come down
here and repeatedly have to express truthfully and honestly how our heartbreaks for americans that were killed because we never learned our lesson? because we had people that thought what difference does it make? . ent america deserves better. we have a pledge to protect this country this blessed country, from all enemies, foreign and demest ex. i hope and pray we'll begin to better live up to that hope. at the same time as i pray and mourn for those who have lost, who are suffering, it is my prayer that god almighty will wrap his protective hands around this country and that
this country will give the good lord reason to do so. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman have a motion? -- gohmert: the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. accordingly, the house s
visitor relive the past 20 years.
the museum explains the decision making process i went through as president, and we hope the museum inspires people to want in some their community way. we did not want to be a school. ado not know if there is lesson there. okhotsk i do know laura and i decided to go a different -- why do know laura and i decided to go a different direction. >> live thursday morning. for in at 10:00 eastern conversation with the former first couple. security secretary
janet napolitano testified for an immigration bill by a bipartisan group of senators known as the beginning of a. she was before the committee for two and a half hours. >> good morning, everybody. i know we're on a tight schedule. the secretary has to testify later today for appropriations. i want to commend you for working so hard on the coordinated national security effort in boston. the middle of the night, early morning briefings on what has happened and the way your
department, local and state police, the fbi work together is a model for the rest of the world and how quickly everybody was able to move. the patriot day bombing and the successful capture of the remaining suspect is why you were not here that day. i well understood what your schedule look like and it was time for you to be in the command post. a number of concerns were not part of the effort for comprehensive immigration reform. we return to testify about the ability of this. you had been here in february to testify about this effort. you said you were willing to come back.
it is a testament to reforming immigration that you were willing to return just two months after last appearance here. the some sleepless nights in what has happened in the last few days. so, it would be easy to talk about last week. this is the opportunity to ask you about economic opportunity, immigration modernization act, which is why you are here. this is a member of the cabinet that will be involved in implementing this legislation. and i repeat that you and president obama have done more in the first four years to enforce immigration laws and strengthen border security than in years leading up to this administration. you have more than 21,000 agents on the border patrol. new technologies have been deployed to the borders. according to the report by the
migration policy institute, the united states now spends more than it does on all the other major federal law enforcement put together. so, i think it is time to start talking about reforming the immigration system. we're doing more enforcement than ever before. that should not be a bar to having good immigration reform. it is long past time that we reformed our immigration system. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values. one that treats americans with humanity.
one that shields the most vulnerable among us. one that helps to enrich our committees. i commend several senators for their extraordinary work here. i am concerned that some are -- what some are calling it triggers for getting green -- i do not want people to
move out of the shadows to the stuck in some kind of underclass. we should not make people's future status depended over a situation in which they have no control. i believe we have to end the discrimination of gay and lesbian families. i am concerned about changes of the visa system for families. i have to question whether to spend billions on defense is the best use of taxpayer dollars in a country that we are furloughing air traffic controllers because we cannot pay for them.
people have been brought to this country by other loving parents. we're creating businesses of their own like google and intel and yahoo!, companies that then hire hundreds of thousands of americans. our nation continues to benefit from immigrants. values my parents inculcated in their children. the function of our immigration system affects all of us. senator grassley.
>> thank you for the work you were involved with in boston as well. we welcome you, madam secretary. we appreciate you being here today to discuss the immigration bill. the bill before us is a starting point. the bill is not perfect. i am encouraged to see that one co-sponsor of the bill is taking suggestions on how to improve the legislation. we hope to have the opportunity to do just that. there are 92 other senators that must have their chance to improve the bill. we have a duty to protect the borders. i'm concerned the bill will not secure the border and stop the flow of illegal migration. yesterday i brought up the
language in the bill. legalization begins with the southern border security and fencing. the undocumented become legal. once the secretary certifies that the fencing plans are deployed and completed, green cards are allocated to those here illegally. agricultural workers are put on a different path. if enacted today, the bill would put no pressure on this secretary to secure the borders. you have stated the border is stronger than ever before. you have indicated that
congress should not hold up by holding up border security measures. every senator on the subject has said borders must be secured. short of that, this bill makes the same mistake that we made in 1986. i'm interested in hearing about what problems the build fixes our current immigration system. the clearing of backlogs, what does the bill do to fix the system? i'm concerned the bill provides
authority to you and your department and your successors on almost. is language to waive certain provisions of the law. that could add up to 400. the secretary may define terms as she seems fit. there is no accountability for the money to congress. she can determine what evidence is successful. it reminds me of the 1693 delegations of authority that makes it almost impossible how to predict the law would work. we have a situation that congress should legislate more and delegate less. i have not advocated that we quit talking about immigration reform.
we should carefully review the immigration laws to insure we are addressing critical national security issues. the potential terrorist attacks of the u.s.-canadian north are reminders that our immigration system is related to our national security matters. we know the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their student visas. people stayed below the radar. it has been reported the older boston bomber travel to russia. the bill weakens the entry exit system. it does not deploy a biometric system to land ports. we will continue to rely on airline personnel to properly type a name into a computer.
if the background checks or anything like they were in the boston bomber, we are in trouble. if the background checks on the 12 million people who are here illegally are riddled with problems, it raises serious questions about the ability to investigate such individuals. we heard the immigration bill would weaken asylum law. courts are clogged with asylum
cases. it is no secret that terrorists are trying to exploit the system. it allows any individual whose case was denied based on the one-year bar to get their case reopened. they can still apply despite the current provisions that bars any relief under the immigration law. the bill provides exemptions for certain criminals, making some eligible under the bill. they may still apply for the provisional status. we heard about the system -- the situation -- we heard testimony about the immigration and customs enforcement agent about the inability of our agents to do their jobs.
the group refused to hear from enforcement agencies. it seems unthinkable that law enforcement would be left out of the room when the bill was put together. nothing in the bill deals with student visas. a terrorism case has come to light that may involve an individual that overstayed student visa. i look forward to the testimony today. >> thank you. madam secretary, it is over to
you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for common sense immigration reform. let me say a few words about the attack in boston. our thoughts and prayers remain with the city of boston. i know all of us here are committed to finding out why this happened, what more we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future, and making sure that those responsible face justice. thisll learn lessons from attack. we will apply those and we will emerge even stronger.
law enforcement joined together and shared resources. many had been trained in improvised explosive threats and many had exercise for this scenario. andresponse was swift effective. i think the people of boston showed tremendous resilience over the past week, and so did america. after 10 years of training and equipment and improved information sharing, our cities and nation are stronger, more prepared and better equipped to face a range of threats. this legislation will build on these gains. the draft bill captures the principles enunciated by president obama in las vegas and reflects the spirit necessary to achieve comprehensive
immigration reform. the bipartisan work will strengthen security at our borders by funding the continued deployment of manpower and proven effective surveillance technologies along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border. these efforts have already reduced illegal immigration. they must be strengthened and sustained. the bill helps eliminate the jobs magnet that fuels illegal immigration. it holds employers accountable and requires the monetary use employment verification. employment verification supports strong border security. it provides businesses with a clear free and emission means to determine whether their
employees are eligible to work here. we promote fairness, prevent illegal hiring, and we protect workers from exploitation. the bill also provides a pathway to earn citizenship for the millions of individuals currently in our country illegally. many have been here for years and contributing to our economy. knowing who they are is critical to public safety. it must be evidence from the outset there is a pathway to citizenship that will be fair and attainable.
dreamers and immigrant farm workers will also be included. those who complete the requirements will be able to achieve lawful status more quickly. the bill will improve our legal immigration system. it raises the cap on visas. it continues to protect vulnerable immigrants. workertes new temporary programs while protecting american workers. businesses must be able to maintain a stable legal workforce if our economy is to
continue to grow. this will pressure on the border and reduce illegal flows. the majority of americans support these common sense steps. we are ready to implement them. we can and we will achieve the core provisions of the bill. we stand ready to work with the congress to achieve this important goal. the introduction of this legislation is indeed a milestone. i look forward to continue to working with you and to answering your questions today. >> thank you. thank you for a busy time being here.
an additional one-half billion dollars to build a fence along the southern border. we have built 650 miles of fence along the border. show me a 50 foot wall and i will show you a 51-foot ladder. more fencing would not have anything about the case in boston. we have limited resources. significant gains have been made in the last four years.
is half a billion dollars the most effective way to spend limited resources? >> if the congress decides that is where they want to put some money, we will comply. we would prefer having money not so designated so that we can look at technologies, they can be ground-based, air based, that may be more fitting to prevent illegal flows across the southwest border. a would not so designate defense fund per se. we would like flexibility. annualsume there is an maintenance cost. >> operation and maintenance costs. there are holes put in it. we're very good at building the
infrastructure. we know what works better. it is not just building but maintaining. >> questions about people's life along the border. >> the last remaining mile of the fence has not been completed because it is tied up in property litigation. >> there was historic preservation for purposes of the defense construction. this bill also provides waiver authority. what goes into your thinking if you wave that authority? >> it is a careful process. we now have mou's the department of interior concerning the federal lands that are along the border that grant us access to build
infrastructure and those sorts of things. some of the logistical problems have been worked out. when you build a fence that goes to the middle of a downtown area, there are lots of values to be considered. >> when you were here a couple of months ago, i explained my concern about proposals where citizenship is always over the next mountain. i want the pathway to be clear. i want citizenship to be
attainable. this legislation has several triggers that have to be met before people can get their green cards. then they go in a state of limbo. are the triggers truly attainable? >> one is the submission of the plans. one is the implementation of a national employer verification system. an is the implementation of electronic entry-exit system. those triggers are already part of the plan. i believe we can satisfy them in the upcoming years. bostonhe wake of the bombings, month raised >> in the wake of the boston
bombings, some have raised concerns about security screenings. i don't believe the boston bombing is a reason to stop progress. i trust our law enforcement people to be able to handle that case. our courts are the best in the world. have no worry about that. it imposes on legislation. there are several provisions to ake our country safer. can you tell us about the security screen currently in place and will this help or hinder that? >> let me start with what the process is now in share it that over the past four years we have
increased the number and the coverage of the vetting that goes on. if someone is seeking asylum, they first have a screening interview to see whether they have presented any credible fear of persecution. that includes biographic and biometric information. that is all run against all law enforcement holdings and also t. holdings of the ntc they submit to a full-scale interview. this could be several hours. it is usually accompanied by affidavits. other supporting documentation. one of the things we do is re-fingerprint the individual to make sure it is the same individual who originally
presented. we have identity verification. we vet and so forth. after a year, we can convert lpr status. you are vetted once again. after five years you can apply for naturalization. that is the current situation. t is very important. if you're granted naturalizeation between then and the ceremony, right before the ceremony, we revet everyone for the final time. that is the current situation.
the existing bill is built own that. one of the important things the existing bill does, quite frankly, from a law enforcement perspective is bringing all the people out of the shadows who are currently in the shadows. that r.p.i. process is very, very important. >> we heard testimony yesterday. i share this feeling that there is a principle behind this legislation legalize now and forest later. this is where i am coming rom. i also you're assuming you read it. my questions come to some specifics. do you agree with my opening statement that upon enactment if it requires strategy before legalization begins?
>> it requires plans for infrastructure and for border security. two different plans and substantial completion. >> can tell the american people hy they should trust the purposes of legislation to secure the border after 12 million people get legal status and the ability to live and work freely in the country? >> i think a couple of very important things. number one, the bill builds on the very large investments they ave made on the southwest border and sustains that. it is the sustainment part that is so important. that is where we have experienced the gaps. the bill guarantees that we
build on that. secondly, the bill actually upports border security that two major drivers of migration across the border are labor and the fact it takes so long to get a legal visa. the bill deals with both of those problems in a way that gives us more metrics. more things than we can use from a law enforcement purpose. it supports the border security measures already in place. >> the bill prohibits officers and renewing aliens to "appear eligible" for legalization until a final decision has been made. does this bill tie the hands of immigration agents in the same way the 1986 amnesty did? > i do not believe so.
i think that what the bill does this say did there running and move it as quickly as possible. do the background checks. do the security checks. et the identification out. do not renew somebody who is not a priority individual. >> thank you for starting out your statement in reference to the boston situation. i feel comfortable asking this question. several media outlets have reported that two individuals responsible for the bombings were immigrants from chechnya. before the brothers became the focus of the investigation, authorities questioned a saudi student who was on a terrorist watch ist. i sent a letter to you this questions about
the bombers. i trust you'll probably respond given the impact this could have on the immigration debate. was he on a watch list? if so, how did he obtain a student visa? >> he was not on a watch list. what happened was this student was in the wrong place at the wrong time. he was never a subject or a erson of interest. because he was being interviewed, he was at that point being put on a watch list and then when it was quickly determined that he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch list stats was removed. >> with regard to the older brother, was your department aware of his travels to russia? if you were not, the reason. >> in 2012?
yes. the system pinged when he was a leaving the united states. by the time he returned the atter had been closed. >> is it true that his identity documents did not match his airline ticket? and if so, why did t.s.a. miss the discrepancies? >> there was a mismatch. the bill will help with this. it requires that passports be electronically readable as opposed to being manually input. it does a good job of getting human error out of the process. even with the misspelling, under our current system, there are redundancies. the system did ping when he was leaving the united states. >> i'm done, but can i make a
orrection in my statement? i said yesterday it decade after 9/11 a terrorism case has come to light that me and an individual who overstayed his student visa. i have to to say we just simply don't know. so my statement was incorrect on that appointment. > welcome. i have five questions so i'm going to try to go very fast. >> i will try to answer very fast. >> the first one is on e-verify. it is our understanding that you are planning to develop a pilot e-verify program for agriculture. i asked chuck who is representing the industry if they have heard of this. they had not. when will this begin? who is responsible for that implementation? >> it is under the
mplementation of cis, multiple -- mobile sites that can be moved around to different fields and other areas that may not have offices. my dream would be to have some sort of app. the bill does not have the e-trigger until year four. i'm very comfortable sitting here today telling you by year four, we will have multiple ways by which employers can verify legal residents. >> can you have your people talk with mr. connor? >> yes. >> thank you. flight schools. a g.a.o. report released last ear found that many flight schools obtain students in exchange visitor programs certification from immigrations and forced them without being certified by the faa.
according to g.a.o., 167 out of 434th flight training schools, 38% today do not have the required faa certification. i am told ice is often unaware when they revoke certification for flight training providers. i understand that ice is working with f.a.a. to thards issue. what updates and insurance consist you provide about ice's efforts to improve its communication with the f.a. toombings address this issue? >> i think we are very far along. by the way, senator, we're also moving from a new system governing institutions that educates student visa holders. this will help solve the problem. i will get to that. the silent screen process.
under the present system, applicants for asylum must undergo a credible fear interview to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution in his or her county of origin. but the officer determines that they have a credible fear, the application is a long for further consideration. this bill streamlines the process partly by allowing a screening officer to grants asylum immediately following the interview. if this were to become law, how would the department in sure they're adequately screen for national security threats? current regulations permit to confer with the state department to verify the veracity of an applicant's claim.
to what extent do they use the authority? are there barriers that prevent full information sharing between the agencies? my concern is it is not streamlined to the point where the checks are not adequate. >> we have greatly improved the information available from the get go in terms of what data bases are checked. the laufered, the security databases and so forth. that starts from the beginning when we collect this. with respect to the state department, we have very could -- good relations with the state department in the area which is credible fear. >> you will check whether that is an accurate statement. >> yes.
we do not take it as being valued. >> the concern is that this bill truncates the process. i would just ask you to look at hat. let me turn to the student visa fraud. this is something i have been interested in since 9/11 when there was a lot of it in the country. i just looked at schools going back to 2008, most of in 011. eight of the 14 schools are in my state where there are very suspicious activities going n. you have 10,500 schools approved by dhs to accept non-immigrant students. last year we sent a letter to immigration and customs enforcement to express our
concerns about a student visa fraud and a lack of information sharing. the response letter noted that i.c.e.'s ability to monitor international students the second is expected to improve the ability to avoid fraud of which there is still plenty. is it on track to be fully operational by 2013 when this bill goes into effect in? >> that is my understanding. yes, senator. >> we will count on it. >> it goes to the fact that this ill builds on the security matters we already have in hand.
we are well under way. my anticipation is that it will be implemented by the end of the year. >> thank you. >> we're going to senator cornyn next. >> good morning. i want to start with something i agree with you on. the border fencing, texas is different from arizona and california and other places. they have recommended some tactical use of fencing. i don't believe and i don't think you believe that building a fence across the 2,000 miles southern border is the answer. it is a combination. i like to see flexibility with cutting up with the best strategy to achieve the goal.
>> let the record show we agree. >> that is a good start. here is the harder part. in the bill, there are different measures for effective control of the border. it calls for a 90% effectiveness rates. it to you know how many people actually crossed the border and unbeknownst to the department and get away? we do not know the denominator. we know the numerator. because we know the people who were detained, but we don't know people who attempt to get across and are successful in doing so? >> that is one of the problem as using effectiveness rate as your only measure. as we continue to put in place of the technology according to the plans we have submitted to
congress for each sector along the border, i think we have greater confidence that we will have situational awareness. i will share with you bet that is an inherent problem, knowing the actual denominator. >> i thought it bizarre that we measure our success by the people we catch and not focus on the people who got away. it is an inherent problem. >> it is a number that is used s one of the many that taken together a gives you an overall picture. >> under the bill, the department would have to gain effective control over high risk sectors along the border. right now, based on 2012
numbers, that would be tucson, the rio grande sector and laredo sector. obviously two in texas and one in arizona. the problem with that is that if the cartels and the human trafficers know where the department of homeland security is going to concentrate its efforts, they are going to reroute and redirect their efforts into the areas that are not as hardened and secure. wouldn't you agree? >> this is the way it will work, senator. all sectors will have protectors in them. you want to put your resource where is the traffic is greatest. if it shifts, the resources will shift. the ability we have now is we
are much better able to predict where we think that will move. >> the bill provides for an angle review. my concern is that human traffickers are far more nimble. and are able to -- an annual decision just seems to me to be nworkable. >> that's what the draft bill provides. reregularly review those numbers and make decisions. so we would not wait for an annual review to make adjustments. >> on the number of people who et away, there was a story in the los angeles times, i'm sure you're familiar with, talking about radar technology the story suggested that as many
as half of the people who cross the border get away undetected by the department of common security. you have any reason to disagree or differ with that estimate? >> yes. that story was misleading. they did not understand the technology. it has not even been used yet. we're taking something used in the the battlefield and transferring to the border. it did not take into account the fact, but there were apprehensions being made around he anture. -- aperture. i can give you more of a detailed briefing in a private setting which i think is more appropriate. that article was very inaccurate and incomplete. >> i would welcome that. my last question is since 1996, the law of the land has mandated
the implementation of an automaticed entry/exit system. here are 16 years later and it still has not been done. my question is, what gives you any confidence that it will be done? nourned the terms of this bill if it hasn't been done over the last 16 years? >> two things performs one is that we have now enhanced our ability to, as i said before, use different databases and link them in different ways. we have already submitted our plan for moving toward electronic verification. upon air and sea exit. this is the plan we are already implementing. in terms of a biometric exit, and we piloted that in detroit and a plant said. one of the issues is our
airports are not designed to have those kind of exit lights. and just a plain architecture problem. we believe we can achieve that with an electronic record erification. that would be for both air and sea. >> thank you. > thank you. >> thank you for being here. thank you for all of your good work last week. last year and a bipartisan group of senators introduced an act which modernizes the waiver program, the wait times. as former governor of arizona, which is a great tourism state, although not quite as good as minnesota with our foot of snow in april, there have been some
dramatic changes made already. i wanted to know if you support this bill and if you think this is a good idea. and what you think of using video conferences more to try and speed up the numbers. we lost 16% of the international tourism since 911. we're financing mprovements. >> the administration is supportive of the jolt act. we are supportive of the waiver program. videoconferences and we're using n different areas. it is a tactical decision. it is 90 degrees in phoenix today. >> ok. i get the message. but we have the mall of america.
many officials have had their resources stretched. can you speak to the potential benefits of this bill and the resources to state and local law enforcement agencies of passing this comprehensive reform and improving security on the border? >> the bill does an excellent job of putting more resources at the border and specifying resources to be used in a stone arden type of arrangement. i think there are some special provisions for arizona. it is supportive of state and local law enforcement. >> this is very important including in the immigration rea.
the department of labor and the justice department have to use their audit team authorities to go in combat the use of all these programs. does this improve the resources the government has to identify? how do you think this helps? >> the bill increases the body of knowledge that we have available to us. it requires more by way of verification of employees. it requires a secure identification to be issued. it gives us more biometric capacity. we should also be able to take the database and dump it into our matching data base. that will be very helpful. >> that is something we have all been talking about in the past
week the difference of knowing what is here and being able to get that information, which actually eludes us right now. >> on the improvement is to bring people out of the shadows. we know who they are. we know where they are. from a police perspective, once these people know that very time they interact they will be subject to removal, it will help with the reporting of crime. the willingness to be a witness and so forth. >> i was going to ask you about the new visa program. we worked hard to get this in the violence against women act. we had been there. we were trying to expand this. we know how perpetrator's expand this of perpetrators used the law against victims. they say if you're going to report this, i'm going to have
you deported. can you explain how that work helps to protect the victims of their not afraid to come forward? >> it expands the number of new visas that are available and also the visas that are available. from a crime prediction standpoint and our ability to prosecute, those who are abusers is very helpful. > thank you. >> on thursday we are going to eet at 9:30 a.m. and said that -- because of a security riefing at 10:30 a.m.. we have the privacy act.
we will need the quorum. senator lee, you're next. >> thank you. i do look forward to that hearing. it is going to be a fun one. hank you for joining us today. some of the questions i have had relayed to the amount of discretion that you and your successors will be given over time should this become law. some have suggested there are as many as 400 instances of discretion. i do not mean to suggest that discretion is categorically bad. sometimes it is necessary. i want to look at where this would be invested in your office and ask about how it might ork. in establishing the border fencing strategy, you will have a certain amount of discretion as to how much additional fencing might need to be
deployed upon on the southern border region. you have discretion to certify when this is substantially complete. as i is complete. as i understand it, president obama stated in a speech in a pass so that he believed the border fence was basically complete. one question that i have for you that-- have you determined the porno additional fencing is necessary? what do you think is the soonest he might certify that has been completed? , if thatsly we would part of the bill is passed as it is currently written and the chairman and i already had a meeting about that, we would move very quickly. you know, we have as i said before, sector by sector technology plans.
we would move very quickly. to look at the overall fencing requirement. >> should this be enacted into law, would permit you to make a finding that, you know, if complete, substantially completed without building any additional fencing? >> right now the border patrol, pursuant to existing law, appropriations law has done an extensive study of where fencing makes sense along with southwest border. they determined that there were 653 miles and vast stretches of the border where it does not make sense. 652 miles of that have been completed. " we should do if it passes is go back and look at the kind of
fencing and make a triple what it is, taller, something of that sort? have continually look at the infrastructure along the border from a security perspective. >> you will also have discretion on in therounds admissibility. related to criminal background. saysanguage of the bill the you can do that for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity. once you decide to make such a waiver, you have to apply to the class of any person that would be situated with respect to their own eligibility. in what situations you think you might consider granting the >> i will copy of all of
my answers for this is what i know. see that there would be consideration based on the age of a conviction, the type of a conviction, whether the individual was the primary wage earner for a family. not just a family member. since prior conviction. record on an individual. statuspplicant for rpi may not file an application for that status unless the individual has satisfied all tax obligations to the irs. meaning federal income tax.
since the date on which the applicant was authorized to work in the united states. if the alien was authorized to work in the u.s. during the time in which he or she was legally authorized, with the taxes have not already been collected? as i read that language in the momentt runs from the rrpi wasould be authorized to work in the country. is that not a significant restriction? >> i think that the issue that the intent of the bill is to make sure that anyone related to is i has paid all taxes and paying of taxes. if the language has to be theified that is what committee processes 4. >> thank you, there's more that
we could ask but i see that my time has expired. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. >> thank you. a wanted to thank you very much. this is a broad reaching portion. i'm grateful for you doing your very best, particulate at this time when we open this hearing for reflections on the tragedies in boston and west texas. assurance can negus of islam to great the ability to perform custom issues?
>> this is to make sure that the additional activities are defined. this'll help the economy grow and every state. employment verification, making more visas available on a permanent and temporary worker basis, this will help the economy grow in every state. >> there has been some discussion about discretion. under current practice they use the authority very sparingly. it said is have shown roughly 1% of all cases. how much more should we expect
the department to exercise discretion? >> we do not think that is pursuant to policy. >> they spent time the information from own cases. the have to spend significant time because there's a discovery process. each request for their own files has to go through a for your process. with the department of jet to
streamlining through providing the file through the events hearing? >> provided we have the resources to pull the files, i would have no objection. logisticalreal issues is contained in paper files. in caves. given the resources, anything we can do to share mind this would be something to be considered. seene department may have some benefits in terms of the overall efficiency. >> what privacy protections need to be put in place to employers to not miss use the system? andwith this legislation
improve on it? do you think it to be appropriate to give the states additional funds with the obligation? >> it allows them to put their driver's license and database into the e-verify database. >> thank you very much. thank you for your interest. >> thank you. pleasureen a real working with you on this very important time. let me start with a waiver provisions. it is my understanding there is no waiver for in aggravated
felony. those three areas are not wadable. >> that is my understanding. >> it is good to know that there is some discretion. not in these areas. about what we're trying to accomplish here, how much money have we spent on border security since 2005 or 6? >> billions. >> multiple billions. it had 3500 more officers. it does. people are stationed at the border. we have doubled in number since 2005 or six. 4500 more cbp officers. they may be at ports.
>>we're adding 35 under more of a service to help secure the border. -- 3500 more customs patrol officers to secure the border. we're also trying to achieve a 24 hour/seven day we presence. >> i would include different kinds of radar systems that work better. >> to appoint to spend $3 billion on carrying out the border enforcement strategy. >> we a line to allow the national guard to be deployed. >> that is rights. i really appreciate this mission assignments.
>> i think it triples those under operation streamline. tothat is what we're doing enhance the border itself. you agree with me that controlling jobs is just as important as securing the border? >> at least as important. that is a major driver of illegal migration. isling with the worker side so important. >> these are not being overrun by 11 million. they come to visit. they go back home. we are being overrun by people
with corrupt and poor countries. the only should you secure border, but the second line of defense is controlling the jobs. 40% of the people here illegally never came across the border. they came to a visa system. one of the triggers is to get injury and exit running so we know when it expires. >> yes. >> the 19 hijackers were all students here on visas. >> that is correct. there are a number of ways that those hijackers would be revealed under the bill.
>> now we have a robust guest worker program providing legal labor to workers who cannot find this. >> the combination of systems worked in concert, increasing border security their technology and manpower, controlling at a national level. providing access to labor was trying to achieve border security. >> it is an interwoven system. absolutely. >> you said that the older brother, at the suspect was killed, when he left to go back to russia in 2012 the system
picked up his departure but did not pick up him coming back. is that correct? >> that is my understanding. >> the text alone was more than one year old. >> after having taught to the fbi, they tell me they had no knowledge of them coming back. the name was misspelled. i like to talk to you more about this case. i do not know how in the world we know this at this early stage. as to the person giving information, i would imagine the 19 year old will tell us that his brother was the bad guy. >> this is a very active on
going investigation. off threads are being pulled. there will be a classified briefing for the senate. >> thank you. we know you continue to have urgent matters which require your attention. i want to thank you for out that there are two borderivers of a legal crossings. one is labor. the second takes so long for a legal visa to come into our country.
this addresses both of the issues that show us decreasing illegal border crossings. ourt allows us to focus resources on those who are smugglers and narco traffickers. >> it allows our priorities to be where they ought to be in terms of enforcement. this will help millions of families with their loved ones. it also dramatically restrict the ability of some families to reignite research and loved ones. did this is a concern to those who are on the way list from
asia. but i like to continue to work with the members of the committees and with all of you to seek improvements on the family provisions to include lgbt families. veterans have been waiting for decades to reunite with their children. i know that compromises need to be made. there are some areas where it went further than it needed to. this eliminates the categories and replaces it with a new of based system. we believed it will eliminate many than members reunited with
their it united states siblings. this provides assistance in an emotional financial support. it provides care. there are many times when this may be the only remaining member of their nuclear family. i am concerned this will no longer provide a meaningful opportunity for them to participate for their siblings. what opportunities will they have to be able to immigrate to the united states. >> the intent of the bill is the exchange for allowing the spouses and children to be
excluded in exchange for the recapture provisions of unused visas and balance with the increase in economic related visas. there are other avenues of different work related these is that a sibling would be eligible for regardless. there are different avenues they could receive. >> i have a hearing relating to comprehend the immigration reform. they obtain legal sadness from a legal system. it would give points that allow them to score high enough to be able to come in. >> is difficult to answer that
hypothetical right now. this is a big improvement. i think this is a major improvement. we will deal with a lot of the backlog of. >> there are probably some ways which we can allow for these many members to come in so that the issue can be addressed. i look forward to continuing to work with you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for joining us.
thank you for the excellent work that you and your agency have done over the last week in dealing with and apprehending the boston bomber. it has been a time of great trauma. we're all celebrating that he was apprehended so quickly. >> thank you. >> and would like to ask questions both dealing with process in dealing with border security. my office received the text to this bill at 2:25 a.m. on wednesday april 17, five days ago. the bill as a hundred 44 pages long. it is dealing with a very complicated topic. when did your office received a
copy of this bill. >> after it got any morning. >> since you have been heavily focused on matters such as letters such as this, had you had the time to read the bill? >> i had read the bill. i know many sections of the bill fairly well so i was able to scan it. >> it is been a busy weekend. >> a very busy. >> restaurants of border security are sometimes interesting. seems they pushed to a decrease
as evidence that border security is working well. i'm always a little skeptical of these statistics that proves the end up being put forth. let me ask an initial question. have apprehensions increased or decreased? from last year to this year. >> overall, they have stayed the same with respect to the southern rio grande valley where we had had an increase primarily in central mexico. i he did he it this. >> i am a little puzzled. earlier this month he told reporters in houston.
sentencing this is done the signs of success. >> both are accurate. apprehensive is up 40 years ago. the key is to sustain that. >> you just said a minute ago they were higher this year than last year. >> one is referring to border wide. riois referring to the grande sector. when the traffic is higher now. actions are being taken.
>> your testimony is borderline apprehensions are down. >> what i just said is it is about level with last year expect with respect to south texas. >> had did gain a measure border security? it relies upon them having a sound metric for who is attempting to cross this country illegally into is being prevented or apprehended. have to the action figure out what is happening and measures
success? why is it the department no longer uses the much of operational control? >> we look at a number of things. we look at apprehensions. we look at crime rates. we look at seizures both inbound and outbound. we look at reports from those on the ground at the border. it is a whole host of things. one of the things we are really looking for is what is the
trend. this is all in a positive direction that we can also make decisions about where we can put more resources. reno's sell texas is problematic for us carry it that we will see these very quickly. >> i just want to thank you for the house standing job your doing. this bill is going to be available for everyone to read for three weeks. i would also say that we had senator grassley. he introduced a gun bill at 11:00 on the very day. i did not set any cry about it. fore'll be plenty of time
everybody to prepare amendments for members of this committee and for members of the floor. this is just like health care. it is not. we started debating this before it was even introduced. i think i speak for the eight of us who put this together. last time we cannot have a committee process. the bill collapsed on the floor. compromises could have emerged. we may have avoided that. to have a robust processes and our interests. thisy is trying to rush through in any way.
i would now like to talk about the border. back in 2000 sent the mayor member that some john mccain and myself into the border bill that had a supplemental approach of about $600 billion. at that time it had an effectiveness rate of 68%. out of every hundred people authorities saw, they are able to catch or turn that 68. after the border bill was passed, it went up to 80 to zero. is that correct? >> that sounds about right. >> $4.5 billion, a maxium of $6.5 billion over the next six years. can you tell us what kind of
security impact will have? doesn't seem very logical we're going to get a higher rate than we have now? >> i think that is true. in my view, the key is technology and air cover. our ability to implement the best technology at the border as we're doing so now. to speed that up can improve where we are now. >> i went to the border. it is clear that it is a vast
border. i am from the tiny state of new york. you cannot do it is by letting the people. you can figure out where the people are going and apprehend them 50 miles inland. the drones have the ability to follow that. we need more drones. we need more air. >> i do not disagree in the technology. the actinometer has always been one of the major problems in calculating. >> again, how we tighten up security. it is clear that tamerlan
tsarnaev had no record of him going to russia are coming back because his name was misspelled. it was a foreign airline. under our bill, everything will have to be a passport or machine-read. is it a safe guess that under our law the authorities would know that tamerlan was going to russia? >> there was a ping on the l down to customs. anything that makes a requirement for machine readable gets manual in putting out of the system and improves security. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thet was a revelation on border.
we saw an apprehension. >> they knew exactly where the person climbing the fence would go. it was amazing. >> i think the woman heard senator schumer's accent and thought she was in new york. [laughter] it was a good trip. it is always good to see the border. you talked about apprehension rate. abouthas been concerned metrics. is it true what we're calling for in the legislation is pretty much what you do now? senator schumer quoted some statistics from several years ago. now you have more resources to
do it. the net effect. we know how many people across. we can get a better figure there. >> no one number captures the nature of the border. not is why i say there is one metric that is a number 42 or some sort. thee give you a picture of border. they are informed by what we are seeing. >> given where we are already, you'll be able to achieve the 90% effectiveness rate? >> the border provides for a commission and additional
resources. it is not just at the border. it is improving the overall system. >> the so-called second border. do you see any issues with having e-verify mandatory and the time frame called for? >> it is achievable assuming the resources are available. we will implement the bill with the timeline you have given us. >> the provisions called for in the bill -- do you see those as helping in that regard? >> absolutely. we are already doing things like photo match. very, very helpful. also incentivizing states to their drivers' licenses into
the database. >> the current concern is that e-verify can tell if a social security number is valid. how does this legislation deal with that? >> it allows us to implement a system that creates a lot on a lot-- that creates a lock on social security number. >> "i have my job so i will lock my number so cannot be used elsewhere." thank you for your testimony. >> thank you.
senator sessions. >> this bill gives the extraordinary discretion if it were to become law about how the law would be carried out. that causes me a great deal of concern. october in 2011, i share with you my concerns. the department has been more focused on meeting with special immigration groups then supporting them and helping them accomplish with the law requires in this country.
have you met with those officers and you said no. have you met with the officers of the ice association? >> have a spoken to border patrol officers in the field, yes. >> i think you should have met with them in the field. morale of ice employees had dropped. were you aware that the morale at ice had dropped? >> that is a real concern of mine. >> are you aware in lawsuit has been filed?
a vote of no-confidence in the ice director was held. nothing has been done to deal with the failed leadership at that agency. >> ice has increased its enforcement efforts and has installed real priorities for the first time. the director gets criticized for departing too many people
as opposed to not enough people. that is a difficult job to have. ice has removed more people and we now have secure communities installed. >> i could not disagree more. that's not what the officers are saying. let me ask you this. she was interrupting my comments. >> i apologize. >> i do not believe that is accurate. he testified that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law. ae ice officers have filed lawsuit. i have never heard of a situation in which a group of
all bank officers sued -- a group of law officers sued. they were saying the oath they took to enforce the law is being blocked and that this is undermining their ability to do what they are sworn to do. >> may i respond? there are tensions with you in leadership. this is what i expect. law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accordance with the guidance they are given from their superiors. that is fully asked throughout the department. that would be consistent with all law enforcement. those are set their superiors. >> well, mr. crane testified that said agents shall do this that or the other. they were not allowed to do
with the law plan it allows. you are not entitled to set policies -- >> if i might, i disagree with almost everything you have said. i think it does point to why this bill needs to be passed. what we want our officers doing is focusing on narco traffickers and money launderers and others who misuse our border and immigration system by having a process by which those in the country legally can pay a fine, register so we know who they are. by opening up the visa system. i'm appreciate that but
worried about the vigor of this department. i would note removals' by ice are down. there was a memorandum that basically undermined prosecutorial -- that is why morale is down. >> i think the secretary has answered the question. let's see how the lawsuit comes out. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your department's response to the boston bombings. our thoughts and prayers are with you. you did an outstanding job in quickly tracking down and
capturing the perpetrators. thank you for your work. i will focus on some things i'm worried about in the bill. this overall package is a giant step forward. [phone ringtone] sorry. i believe this is going and way to fixing a broken immigration system. it will help minnesota of businesses and families. my first question is about the e-verify mandate in the bill. i worry that errors will hurt small businesses.
big companies have the resources to deal with this. but i'm worried about the small family business were the human resource department may also be the accountant and sales force and your spouse. you don't have the time to deal
with a system that is not working 100% properly. one if five businesses in minnesota employs 20 people or less.
the department says one legal authorized worker is wrongly rejected, at least temporarily. that rate is lower than the last independent audit. will the department be able to maintain this error rate? >> that is our intention and to drive that error rate down. the ability of individuals to self check so they can go online and see if the entry is adequate. we have set up a system where things can be corrected if an error occurs.
you have seen that error rate diminished substantially. we'll continue to work in that regard. there believe you'll be with that error rate or better? >> yes. >> one out of every 140 kicked out. somebody who was a legal worker. that sounds low but you wouldn't want that working on your credit card or your car starting assumption. it took legal workers an average of 7-13 days to get those errors fixed. a member what 34 years of service was flagged as an illegal worker and it took him two months to resolve that issue. is it critical that e-verify have these low error rates if it will be mandatory for every
business in the country? >> yes. it will be important to continue to achieve that, senator. >> that was the old 2009 -- i know that dhs has its own figures showing the lower error rates. i think independent audits are what we need here. we are discussing this bill now. would you pledge to release that data in that study? the report -- >> we will make that available. >> i want to thank you for your staff about my bill. this is a party for me. -- this is a priority for me. thank you so much. mr. chairman? >> i understood senator durbin was here and wished to ask some questions. if not -- if you'll hold just a moment. i think he may have had to step up.
senator lee. please keep it to five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to correct something i said earlier. it talks about the tax liability issue. i should have referred to pages 68 and 69 of the bill. the standard is ambiguous as to when it would trigger the back tax liability. i have given a citation error. the standard would give you discretion to identify what documentation that would have to prove to show they had fulfilled their obligation to pay any back taxes. another to talk about provision. this one is on page 63 of the bill.
it deals with who is eligible for rpi status. it waives eligibility for those who have received orders of deportation but have absconded, meaning they fled after having been ordered deported, or they had returned to the united states following an order of deportation after which they return to their home country or another country. i am concerned about this provision, that this might reward condon that seems to be in clear violation of a court order. do you agree with this policy? >> right. i have read the bill but i have
not memorize the pages. i believe that is a provision in the sense that if somebody has been removed from the country and it would otherwise have qualified for rpi, they allowed back in the country, or i can allow them back in the country. that is one of the balances struck in the bill. >> ok. so's your recollection of that provision is discretionary. >> my understanding is the
intent would give us the ability to waive some and that was pre mislead removed -- that previously removed. >> ok. from the date of the enactment, the bill prevents anyone from being detained or deported or apprehended as long as they appear eligible for rpi status. its last as much as three or three and a half years if the extension is granted. we've heard from some ice ages that their work has been
hampered at times. people will claim eligibility simply by saying, i qualify under doca. the concern has been expressed that this could amount to a de facto enforcement holiday where nobody may be detained or apprehended so long as they utter the magic words. >> it is not my intent to take those extensions, assuming i'm here. we have every interest in implementing this as quickly as possible. if somebody has a felony conviction or if they are a national security risk, they fall within our priorities. they would not qualify for rpi. i think we would handle that effectively as we enforce this new regime.
>> thank you, madame secretary. senator durbin. >> thank you. --r title says it all homeland security. i have said and i want to confirm -- do you believe the passage of this bill will make america safer and more secure? >>yes. absolutely. >> up to 11 million people will step forward as to who they are and where they live and where they work, be subject to a criminal background checks. with that knowledge, we will be
a safer nation. >> we will have more identifications, more metrics. so it increases security on that end. right now, that group that is in limbo, they are reluctant to come forward when they have a witness or a victim to a crime. allowing them to get that pathway will alleviate that problem. made is clear we have historic investments in the
security of our border between the united states and mexico. i like to address a couple other areas. one relates to those seeking asylum. there is nothing in this bill that weakens the responsibility of your department to establish through law enforcement and intelligent checks whether those seeking asylum would pose any threat to the united states. >> that is right. as you go through the application process, there are a number of times where individuals are rechecked and re-interviewed. >> i know you're aware of my interest in the dream act. i want to plug you and the
president again for doca. aboutwas criticism whether or not those who've gone through the doca check should be closer to provisional status than those who have not. >> i thought that was a good part of the draft bill. the doca process uses a good pilot on how we would do the much larger rpi process. >> i know that e-verify has been discussed. i want to go to the other. that relates to visa holders who come to the united states. our system has been unable to track their departure. theye close the loop.
arrived, stayed, and left as promised. part of the immigration reform moves us to a new stage where it to increase safety we will develop the technology to establish that. can you tell me your level of confidence that we can reach that in the near future? >> the electronic exit system is very consistent with the plan we have already submitted to the congress. it is an achievable goal as
stated in the bill as drafted. >> i have stated publicly and i hope that you agree -- the worst thing we can do is nothing. to step back and just accept the theken immigration system. weaknesses in our security and safety that are associated with it and resign ourselves to that as our future -- i thing that is the worst outcome. >> i could not agree with you more. i think the draft bipartisan bill embraced the principles the it is ant enunciated. much better system that we have now. it deals with security and economic growth and vitality. it is a bill i am hopeful will move forward. >> thank you very much.
>> senator blumenthal and senator whitehouse have asked for a second round. i know you have another matter. >> thank you for your helpful testimony. i like to ask a question that perhaps you may have entered in a different way. if you had three points where you think this bill should be
changed so as to be improved -- it is a bipartisan bill. i am a supporter and i believe strongly that the worst thing to do now would be to do nothing. every measure can use some constructive scrutiny. i wonder if you have any suggestions on how this bill might be improved. >> rather than create a separate fence fund is to have one security fund so the operators and the secretary have more flexibility with those monies. i would recommend that. we'll work with committee staff on this, to make sure the language about funding flows and which accounts is accurate and clear.
we want to make sure it is consistent with the appropriations. we will work with your staffs on that part. >> in terms of the tension or the judicial process by which these cases are prosecuted, so to speak, can you suggest changes that would make it fairer? >> one change in the bill reflects a policy change we're in stolen right now. counsel for those who are deemed mentally incompetent.
>> in terms of the impasse of the most recent incident in boston, i know you have addressed those in the course of your testimony. i wonder if there's anything we can do to raise these issues so they did not become embroiled in the short-term, misperceptions that might result. >> there is a line of misinformation out there as to the two brothers. this is an ongoing criminal all threats are being followed. there is going to be a classified briefing on thursday for the senate. let's have that briefing and see if any questions arise that have any relevance to immigration.
>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will call on myself. welcome. it is good to have you here. many express my appreciation for the stellar way about how you responded in boston. i know you have a soft space in your heart for law enforcement folks. the way people pull together and the impressive deployment of a wide range of local, state, and federal capabilities very comprehensively and very smoothly. i know you were an important participant in that.
let me say well done. we have heard complaints about the lack of border enforcement, the palms of continued illegal immigration across the southern border. i think that is a refrain that departs a little bit from the fact. you can recap some of the accomplishments of the obama administration in border security. if you could give us the highlights reel and some of the statistics and metrics that you look at. i would like to have that be part of the record. >> i have worked at border for a
long time. this has to be sustained. this is an important part of this bill. we have record manpower now between the ports of entry. we've completed all but 1 mile the last mile is in litigation. the end result -- we have a problem in south texas which we are fixing. our seizures for drugs and contraband are up. with the great help of the supplemental appropriation several years ago, we have been able to do quite a bit the southwest border.
>> the deployment of resources have increased? >> to record levels. >> amount of legal immigration as a result has been reduced. there ares correct. probably a number of other reasons for illegal migration. law enforcement is one reason. another major reason is the driver to get a job. that is why this bill helps us at the border. another driver is how long it takes to get a visa. this bill deals with that
problem. >> good. thank you very much for holding this hearing. i do think it is important the record reflect this administration has brought up this country's game in terms of they haveforcement. the appeal of a familiar refrain, but they are not factual. >> thank you. >> i have to ask the senator from rhode island. did you serve at the same time together as a u.s. attorney's or >> both.s general? i think we went to the same law school. >> we did that as well. >> as the outsider -- senator grassley. >> i want to make a statement. it involves the discussion you had with senator graham. you said that tamerlan's name
the not ping on the database. fbi told senator graham that it did not. that is something i want to get to the bottom of. let me get to the first question. the border security bill applies to high risk sectors. you define high risk based on the apprehensions in a particular sector. we know that your department has no operational control of more than half of the border, means apprehensions will remain low in those sectors. do you think it is acceptable for the border to be secure in certain areas? >> operational control is a phrase that should be associated
with the ability to deploy resources to your high-risk areas. there are parts of the border we do not need all the resources. we want the ability to of technology and air cover and to be able to focus and move those around to the areas where the risk is the highest. that is not operational control but it is looking at a whole range of statistics and measures. >> is in that high risk for the bill to ignore large sections of the border? >> if you look -- we divide the border into nine sectors. there are some sectors that have a lot of miles but are sparsely
populated and rarely crossed. they are not near any population centers. they are not near any roads. they're just difficult. we do not leave them bare. we want to surge resources in >> theafficking routes. bill only mentions the need to secure the southern border. no mention of the northern border. only the southern border is included in the trigger. in light of what happened yesterday in canada, can the orrthern border be ignored? does it need to be part of the discussion? >> i think it is part of the discussion. it is a different type of border. to the point on the misspelling of tamerlan's name and what that meant.
i think it would be better if we could discuss those in a classified setting. i believe the draft bill accounts for security on the northern border. >> thank you. how many people today -- if you know -- are in removal proceedings? >> i would have to get that number for you. >> should these people be allowed to apply and receive legalization? >> if they would meet the requirements for being an rpi, i believe they would be allowed to register as such. >> you agree with that. >> we support the intent, yes.
>> how many people today have ignored the order to leave the united states? >> why don't i get you the number for those that we have fugitive warrants. >> should these absconders be allowed to benefit from the even though the government has expanded the resources to remove them? >> given how that is drafted and how it would be a work in progress in terms of family unification, that is a good part of the bill. >> this will be my last question.
i do not know how certain you are about what the fees will bring in. i hope to have a handle on cost analyzers tend.some tell us that the agency will be able to be prepared to cover all costs through fees and the administration will not seek taxpayer money to pick up the tab. does that sound reasonable to you? >> we to work with the committee about how and where the fines go. no from doca, there is a good program for estimating what the costs are going to be. >> thank you.
>> senator cruz has more instead of recessing and coming back later this afternoon, i will yield to him and then we will stop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to revisit the topic we discussed about border security. proponents argue it provides for real metrics for border security and triggers that are meaningful. the testimony that was provided this morning is not encouraging in that regard. we talked about operational a measure dhs had used for some time. in 2010, the conclusion was that only 873 of the roughly 2000
miles of the southern border were under operational control. that was not an encouraging metric. in light of that statistic, the department simply decided to stop relying upon that statistic. and instead, the department now relies on a holistic group of measures which to me seem reminiscent of justice lewis powell -- that measured everything and has a great deal of subjectivity in it. if there are no objective metrics, if it is the subjective assessment of a host of factors, how can we have any confidence
that the border will be secured and that any trigger will be meaningful? >> i think you have to step back and look at where the border was even six or seven years ago. there are a whole host of statistics that help in that they are not subjective in that sense. there are numbers that give you an overall picture of what is happening at the border. the overuse of the metric or misuse of it -- it was easily i am not being critical about it being overused, i am being descriptive. it refers to your ability to be able to respond in a highly trafficked areas. this bill pretty much says,
we're going to continue to build on the security you already there is additional money in there for that. we hope that we can get flexibility with respect to how that money is spent. and by the way, if we use the effectiveness rate and if that does not reach a certain number in the highly trafficked areas, we will have a commission that will recommend what additional steps would need. >> if border security is to be measured by a multi factored test, that this committee knows that dhs conclude border security is satisfied. i would suggest it's not a meaningful trigger.
can you describe a circumstance in which the evidence would be such that dhs says border security is not there. you said apprehensions are at the lowest level in forty years. >> i think, senator, we will agree to disagree on the predicate for your question. we would continue to look at all the measures. we would be deployed in the technology plans. those plans are important and sector specific. they will give us even greater visibility as to what is coming across the border even now.
>> my time is expiring. i will like for you to answer the question i asked. what the evidence would have to show for dhs to show that >>iggers were not satisfied? if the conditions in the tucson area return to they way they were in 2006, the triggers would not be satisfied. >> thank you, madame secretary. >> we talk often on issues. i appreciate yours and the president's commitment on immigration. he and i spent a long discussion more than one and i thank him for having so many issues of
importance before this committee. he was kind enough to say he did then ant me to be bored. withl would have to put up me. as i listened to the debate, for some, there will always be a reason why we cannot go forward on immigration reform. the terrible event in boston or any other thing. it is denying reality to say we cannot go forward. now is a good time. we have had eight senators they go acrosss. the political spectrum in both parties. my wife is a daughter of immigrants. i think of how this country is improved and made better by
immigrants. the most powerful nation on earth cannot face up to reality and find a law that faces thisity, then shame on us. senator believes that we can. i know you believe we can and the president leaves that we can. a growing number of senators believe we can. we want to be the conscience of is the time to show our conscious. thank you for being here. we stand in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> more now on the obama's and in a stray shin to not treat
suspect as an enemy combatant. >> we wanted to have you both here to talk about enemy combatants. the do not intend to treat boston marathon bombing suspects as an enemy combatant. let's take a step back and talk about that term means. >> the root of that term comes from the bush administration which wanted to create a category of people that they felt violated the laws of war. it is less important than what the specific term is. in the current definition is
the military commissions act of 2009. less important than what the specific or means, that the small group of senators are trying to do when they set the boston bombing suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant. they wanted him to be subjected to military custody and military interrogation and denied a lawyer. that shows you how far that argument goes astray. the new york times editorial page called it reckless. there is no legal basis or factual basis to believe this is part of war. holding somebody militarily for a suspected act of terrorism would be unconstitutional and >> what does the term combatant mean to you? >> you are not putting because short on there. you are not equating them with chet -- tax cheats or
shoplifters. what happened in boston was an act of terrorism. it was an act of war. you are calling a spade a spade. this is the most important i could make. enemy combatant is one way to achieve something. what we are trying to achieve with lindsey graham and kelly, that is the most important thing. our priority should be not to punish these perpetrators, not to prosecute them, not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be that we have somebody in custody that may know of other terrorist plots and terrorist cells that has information that could save lives. can they get information from them? tell them that he has the right to remain silent and we are going to remain ignorant of the information that he has, even if
that means that other people will be killed and a terrorist act in the future. it is a mistaken decision to say that we will remain ignorant. aside from all of the prosecution and issues. we are remaining ignorant right choice. >> officials say the boston bombing suspects are apparently motivated by religion. no terrorist group ties. -- brother's mastermind masterminded the attack. they worked independently. does that change your opinion? >> i have great respect for the media. i spent many years as a journalist. we get things wrong. how do we know? can you tell me who trained them? who taught them how to make it on. who ratifies them? youou are going to tell me know everything we need to know
about the case, i have something to tell you. journalists get things wrong. we do not have all of the information. we have somebody in custody that can tell us everything if we can get them to cooperate. that thepe happens is prosecutor says, you are going to get the death penalty. we can treat you a little bit better. i hope that your lawyer tells you to get -- to be totally cooperative with us. you could get some leniency rate if they decide not to do that, what happens is that he tells us nothing. if you think we know everything we need to know about terrorism, i will say that i think you are wrong. >> there is so much they're based on speculation and not based on fact that all. we have no idea about what the motive is. all of that information is going to develop.
i would like to finish. law enforcement, which help protect the people in boston, has tremendous experience in putting together federal terrorism cases. there have been over 400 terrorism prosecutions in the federal courts that have worked safely and securely in the years since 9/11. the boston bombing suspect is a u.s. citizen proceeding down a path -- what the senator said was they recognize that the boston bombing suspect is a u.s. citizen who would be entitled to a federal criminal trial -- all that would be done by this terrible hypothetical by resorting to the military -- remember, in our country, we do not look to the military to conduct law-enforcement, we trust in and look to law enforcement which has all the tools it needs -- here, all that would have been achieved would have been legal
challenges, because military detention would have been unconstitutional, and possibly jeopardizing the federal case that has been and will be put together. host: let's take a listen to white house press secretary jay carney announcing the news yesterday regarding this enemy combatant status. [video clip] >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice under u.s. law. united states citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. host: that is the word from the white house. a decision has been made. guest: it is moot. i agree. i do think it is the wrong decision. i think there is something being confused by a lot of folks. if you were to name dzhokhar tsarnaev an enemy combatant, that does not necessarily mean he goes to it now -- to gitmo. you can name him an enemy combatant for purposes of interrogation. after the interrogation is completed, you can transfer him back to the criminal justice
system. all that happens is the information you've gotten from him during the time he is an enemy combatant would not be admissible in a court of law. you do not use it for that. you do not use it for criminal prosecution. use it for intelligence. use it to unravel terrorism that may be ongoing and learn more about terrorist groups that are in this country and elsewhere plotting against us. i've got to tell you, it is a red herring to say, i do not want a military tribunal. by the way -- guest: no one is saying that. guest: i've heard others say, this is all about getting him to gitmo. the priority should be to get information from him. or should there -- there could be other ways to do it. the public safety exception allows -- host: we will get to that --
hist: what this is about most importantly is whether we get the information, life- saving information that dzhokhar tsarnaev probably has, or whether we say, we just do not need to know. host: we will get to the public safety exception and a little bit. i do want to get your impression -- is it possible to have a temporary use of the military combatant term, get the information needed, and then reenter the criminal justice system? guest: no, the supreme court said you cannot hold people militarily for the purposes of interrogation. this is a legal, factual, and policy nonstarter. it was a mistake by the bush administration, and now accepted by people who do not recognize how far astray the bush administration went when it sought to place civilians in military custody, deny them their legal rights, and it led to a process that we now regret
and recognize as wrong. here is what is important -- the administration has made the right decision to go forward and treat this terrorism suspect as a federal criminal suspect. now we expect law enforcement to use all of the tools that are lawfully at their disposal to investigate this crime, as they have hundreds of other terrorism crimes, including the 1993 bombings, including the oklahoma bombings, and what we cannot do is somehow say, this is so different that we are going to overturn our constitution, we are going to risk jeopardizing a prosecution, and we are going to violate values that we hold strongly and dear. we went down that path, and we came to regret it. we are doing the right thing now. let's go forward. host: we will get your response and a moment. let's reintroduce our guest. hina shamsi is with the aclu.
thef may is president of foundation of defense of democracies. it was an organization started after 9/11. here are the numbers to call if you would like to talk about enemy combatant status -- we've got kerry on the line from missouri, an independent color. let's go to the lines and see what our callers have to say. caller: i just wanted to make a comment -- i read a report that these bombs that were used in boston were a little bit more -- even though they were crude, in some ways crude, and how they were made or used -- that they were a little bit more sophisticated in the mechanism
for triggering them. i know they do not know everything about these bombs yet, but i understood that when they made them -- people who generally make these sometimes may have their hands blown off when they are making them. i believe they may have been trained elsewhere. if i could get you to respond to that. guest: i think we have to wait for the pact to come out about what was done, how the bombs were made. the important thing is to recognize that extremist
violence, using particular kinds of different tools, comes from a variety of different sources and we can trust and our federal criminal-justice system to investigate that and a properly prosecute and punish that. >> we should be careful with suppositions, but we can also have a working hypothesis. in this case we do have a bomb that did have a measure of sophistication. the use of the pressure cooker, , andse of ball bearings essentially many tiny knives that would slice through people's limbs, all that takes some training. the hypothesis would have to be
that they did not do this on their own. investigators could find out more easily if they were able to ask the question and have a question possibly answer. that may not be possible now that the suspect has been told he has a right to remain silent. >> are these just serial killers? and perhaps not terrorists who created an elaborate plot? >> a working hypothesis must be that they are terrorists.
hats a political motivation. if you look on the youtube page of one of the suspects you see links to various jihadist videos. one is one that talks about an army coming out of central arab according to an ancient islamic prophecy and non-arabs and these were chechens from the caucus, they would have better riders and weapons and the penultimate battle against the infidels in an area now lebanon and israel and syria. we can assume this is the kind of thing that inspired him and assume that this was an act of terrorism, not an act of a couple of deranged kids or serial murderers. if you don't think this is terrorism i think you are self-deluding. guest: the suspect has been charged with crimes of terrorism and we will look to see how that goes forward not on working hypotheses based on supposition but actual information law enforcement finds. i do want to make a point about treating terrorism as an act of war as senator graham and others would have wanted to do.
the viewpoint that they have that they have tried to push for the last few years is the idea that we are in a global war, that we're not just in a war in afghanistan, but in a war in the back yards of boston and there is no legal basis to believe that nor is there a factual basis to believe that. what we must do here is avoid the kinds of hypotheses and speculation that would lead us down a path that we have already gone down in the past and that we can and must reject as improper and ineffective and unnecessary. the federal government has done the right thing. the points that somehow when suspects have right to counsel and are read miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not borne out by facts and studies.
in fact, d.o.j. officials and senior law enforcement officials will tell you 80% to 90% of the time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved they are able to help emhis more -- elicit more information and allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases since 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement into have resulted in more information available to law enforcement using lawful tools without needing to violate rights. host: you mentioned senator graham. he pushed against the decision not to use the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will look at this case and look at our laws and come to the conclusion that i have come to. we are at war. we are going to be at war for a very long time and we have to
have the tools to defend ourselves within our values. one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national security purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will never be used in a court of law against the suspect. it will be used to protect us. the last thing in the world we should do in the times in which we live is to limit our ability to gather intelligence to the criminal justice system. because in essence you will have turned over the intelligence gathering process to the accused and their lawyer. host: senator lindsey graham making the case yesterday to use the enemy combatant use for the boston bombing suspect. we go to anna, a republican from texas. caller: it is diana. what i have never heard on the media and what i don't understand is the difference
between the laws that we are arguing about today against the laws that the united states citizen has always had if they are a traitor to the united states. where is the -- which does include the death penalty. why aren't these u.s. citizens considered traitors to the united states and what we believe in and what we have offered them, because there certainly is, as one of you said, political associations. instead of all of this trying to define what a terrorist is. guest: i think you are quite right that these young men who were allowed into the country, went to good schools, one got a scholarship, turns against their fellow citizens after one of them got citizenship, the other
was pending, are traitors. but it is easier to prove that they are mass murderers and maimers than it is to prove that they are traitors. for convenience that is true. also, it has been a very long time since anybody was tried as a traitor in the united states. i'm not sure it is a good idea that we have given that up but we have. and i think from the prosecutor's point of view we can go for the death penalty for what they have done. we don't need to try to prove they betrayed their country though they clearly have. host: let's talk about the public safety exception invoked of the arrest. what do you think about that? how does the aclu come down on that? guest: we start off with the point thamir -- that miranda rights seek to prevent voluntary and coercive interrogation and a
core civil liberty safe guard with constitutional weight. the supreme court has rocked a limited exception to the use of miranda rights which is the public safety exception and thinking there is -- but when the immediate demand of public safety require people to be questioned without their rights being read law enforcement may be able to do so. when the obama administration announced that it was going to use the public safety exception, we said, well, you might be able to do that but recognize that it is limited and narrow. so, now i think that might have been invoked. we don't know. that is one thing we don't actually currently know now. how this has proceeded. what is important here is that the defendant has counsel and has gone before a judge. so, we look to the system to
work, which means we expect prosecutors to proceed fairly and prove their case and defense lawyers to zealously perform their duty. and we look to see what facts they find and architects they make. host: how different is the public safety exception that can be invoked in the first phase after detention of a suspect, how is that different from looking at military or enemy combatant status? guest: the main difference the public safety exception is very narrow and limited in time. it is not exactly clear how much. i'm not sure if it was used by the obama administration, but if it was there was not enough time for a thorough interrogation of the kinds you would want from somebody involved in an act of terrorism to know everything you need. host: what is the mission of that public safety exception? to find out if there are bombs someplace else?
guest: if there is an immediate threat and head it off. host: what is your definition of an immediate threat? guest: something like looking to see if there are additional bombs in place. what is important here is law enforcement were saying over the weekend there is no immediate threat. so, going forward it will be up to the lawyers to determine the facts that played out and we will take it from there. host: cliff may, let's get to the issue of immediate threat. does your definition match up to that or broader? guest: i think it is the ticking time bomb the immediate threat. i don't want to speak for lindsey graham or others but we would like to have it possibility if there is a ticking time bomb. let's finds out. miranda was put in place so you don't have coercion and false confessions under pressure. you don't want to have that.
but you can prevent that in other ways. you can videotape the proceeding. but you also want to have a more thorough investigation because you want to know the methods that are being used if one of the brothers went to chechnya as we think he did and was trained there, by whom, by what cells was he told to come back any time or you will get a phone call to do it? were there people he was in touch with here that may not do anything immediately but may do something in three months and people will be killed? i'm absolutely for constitutional protections but i think it was justice robert jackson said the constitution is not a suicide pact and to choose not to know is wrong. i want to raise one other thing. i think senator graham was right in this. to say there is no war going on is willful mindness. osama bin laden declared a war.
and a jihad is said to take place. various iranian rulers have said there is a global war against the forces of arrogance, that would be us. and i would submit to you that the tsarnaev brothers and fort hood shooter and others perceive themselves not as criminals but as combatants in a war. and to say they are not combatants, they say they are fighting a war but they are not we will treat it as criminal justice problem is wrong. they are combatants even though they don't wear uniforms and carry weapons. that means they are combatants who are violate being the laws that makes them terrorists and makes them unlawful enemy combatants. they are enemies. host: a brief response before we go back to the phones. is it a risk worth taking?
if there is a global war, a war that has been brought domestically to our shores is it worth taking? guest: there is no global war and we don't let individuals decide that for us. there is an actual war that is taking place in afghanistan. there is no global jihadist movement. if we let individuals make that determination why not let right wing supremists who killed about 200 americans in 2012 make that determination for us. as opposed to common criminals who should be investigated and based on that investigation prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. there have been many who made grandiose claims about wanting to be in a war. how that ends up getting decided is based on facts on the ground and based on law and facts, not
on supposition or on the grandiose claims of people who would like to be bigger than they are. host: hina shamsi with the aclu a national security project director and cliff may president of foundation for defense of democracies. he writes a weekly column and contributes often to national review online, town among other publications. a lot of folks want to talk to you. charles from woodbridge, virginia. republican. go ahead. caller: i'm a republican and i'm an american obviously and my stance is that i believe that [inaudible]. host: we are losing you. say it again. caller: i'm sorry. i believe that the administration made the right call on this one. he is an american citizen.
whether he was born here or became one, he is an american citizen. i think what the slippery slope when you start piercing that for lack of a better term, that protection as being an american citizen that is a deterioration because you can make the case to call anything terrorist. what the washington, d.c. did is you never knew if you were the next target because that is the affinity of terrorism. host: here is a tweet about the same thing. can an american citizen be considered and enemy combatant? guest: absolutely. it goes back to the civil war and to world war ii. president barack obama killed one in the wilds of yemen. if you affiliate yourself with enemy forces and go to war against american citizens and kill americans willfully on
behalf of a movement or an enemy force, then you can be considered an enemy combatant. if in world war ii you went to join the nazi forces you are not an enemy combatant? of course you are. host: hina shamsi. guest: it is true u.s. citizens can take up arms against the united states and then they become what is called understood the laws of war belligerents. the problem here that we are talking about is extending and expanding the laws of war far beyond what is constitutionally permitted and permitted under the laws themselves. and i think charles was exactly right. what the suspect is accused of is terrorism. if we think of what timothy mcfay did or what was done in -- mcveigh did or what was done in the olympic park bombing, we
didn't treat those tragedies as acts of war. we appropriately treated them as criminal acts that had to be investigated, prosecuted and appropriately punished. guest: we had an american citizen who was killed on the orders of president obama. did president obama commit a crime by doing that, violate the constitution by doing this? guest: actually, we have a lawsuit in which we are seeking to get answers from the administration about what standards they used around invoked when they killed alaki as well as his 16-year-old son, a boy born in denver, who was never accused of any wrongdoing. one issue this debate encapsulate is how far does the law of war armed conflict paradigm go? our view is that it has to be based on the facts on the ground when you are in an armed conflict, not based on the laws
the united states helped write and it is in our national security interests to enforce. we don't have to treat nor should we nor can we lawfully every act of terrorism and every person with a bomb as a warrior. that is the bottom line here, which is it the laws of war have a purpose but so also do the law enforcement and criminal justice and we cannot replace the entire criminal justice paradigm with an overbroad unnecessary unconstitutional paradigm. guest: so your -- host: we have to get more calls but this is a story in the "new york times" and questions no miranda for suspect. officials said federal authorities invoked a public safety exception to standard criminal procedures and questioned dzhokhar tsarnaev without telling him he had the right to remain silent it learn if he knew of remaining active threats. once they felt satisfied no
threat existed a magistrate judge was brought to his bedside on monday and he was informed of his rights and charges against him in the presence of a lawyer. now a again call from tusk also, alabama. independent line. caller: good morning. i'm a little confused as to how the miranda warning came to be used the way it is. your rights are not conveyed by the warning. you have them under the constitution whether you get the warning or not. what would happen if, in the absence of getting the warning, he would invoke his rights and say i'm not going to speak to you. i want a lawyer? host: thank you. guest: i think ralph is right, that the constitutional right that exists is the one against a coerced or involuntary exception. our courts have said the safeguard that helps protect the
rights is the miranda warning. what we have been talking about is when the circumstances might exist that the public safety exception might apply. our concern had been that the obama administration would be interpreting them far too broadly. right now, and i know in the "new york times" story the public safety exception had been invoked. the extent that was proper or not we don't know. but now that the suspect has lawyers it will be up to them to be able to ascertain the facts and obtain the information and we will see where they take it. guest: the miranda warning is meant to make sure a suspect is informed of his or her rights and in particular the right to remain silent and have an attorney means it is the fifth amendment right this you cannot -- what would you say -- you can't incriminate yourself. it is against self-incrimination.
if you have a public safety exception or an enemy combatant status you are saying we will preserve that fifth amendment right, nothing you say that would self-incriminate will be used against you. it will be kept separate. in a case lake this you could -- like there you don't need a confession, you have so much evidence so you protect the right against self-incrimination and you can do this even with the public safety exception. host: federal official said he admitted to a role in the bombings during the exempted questions. whether it could be admitted later is murky. it would have to be upheld by a judge who determined it was properly invoke and rule if the question hued closely to public safety conditions and whether it would be needed given video and other evidence against mr. tsarnaev and his better tamerlan who was killed.
to finish that thought, hina shamsi, what is the main mission of that moment? does it matter that that evidence may not be able to be used against him in a later court? there are times reporting they may not need it with other evidence. does that change your perspective? guest: no, because my perspective is based on the importance of the right and why it exists. and that there not be made exceptions this go beyond what is permissible. first, because it is wrong and may jeopardize prosecutions going forward. i'm not going to speculate more about what happened here and what didn't happen here, whether it was proper or improper. there is more information to come out and now that the case is in the hands of the federal defenders representing the defendant it is now up to them to determine how to proceed. host: a republican from baltimore. go ahead, jay.
host: i'm a soldier and some of what i heard on the program today deeply disturbs me. i think the discussion about miranda is sue superfluous. some say it deter arrives from the fifth amendment and not from the warning and given the prevalence of it i don't think there's a person who doesn't know they have a right to remain silent. to think just because this young man was very intelligent and educated didn't know he had the right to remain silent because he was not given the miranda is silly. the fundamental issue is the paradigm in which we treat people in this instance facts as the attorney from the aclu point outs and i have to point out i'm not a huge fan of the aclu but i have to agree. we have an american citizen on
american soil and to strip him of constitutional rights is preposterous. the supreme court has spoken to this after the civil war and they ruled that when the courts were open the right of habeas corpus couldn't be suspended. i'm a soldier and when you misuse the laws of war you endanger people like me on the battlefield. there are instances when terrorists are enemy combatants. this is not one of them. guest: no one is talking about depriving anybody of constitutional rights. the miranda warning says you have a fifth amendment right. if the information you provide, information this may save lives and prevent terrorist acts in the future, can't be used against you, you are not in danger of self-incrimination. if that status is used it would still be habeas corpus right. so what we are saying and what he is saying and i think it is wrong there is no such thing as global jihadist movement.
i think the evidence of that is overwhelming and we will treat somebody who commits an act of brutal terrorism as a criminal defendant allow them to lawyer up and say don't say a word, don't give them any information, we will deal later and i think this is ok, i think this is willful blindness and reckless in regard to the people who may be the victims in the future. guest: responding to the caller, i think what you are saying is so important because i hear it from other people in the military. the laws of war have a purpose. if we unlawfully seek to expand that purpose we harm only ourselves and our armed forces, who are legitimately carrying out armed conflict in limited
particular areas in afghanistan. and the constitutional right that would have been violated here had we held the defendant in military custody would have been all of the rights to counsel, the right not to be questioned involuntarily and i think the caller is exactly right to say we must understand that the laws of war have a limit and this is an act of suspected terrorism and our criminal justice system can deal with that for a crime that was committed by a u.s. citizen on a u.s. soil and alleged to be committed. host: here are some tweets. anyone placing a bomb is an enemy to citizens. they are terrorists.
host: we did see them charged -- he, the surviving brother -- charged with weapons of mass destruction. how does that influence or affect how he should be treated? guest: it has no effect on that. the definition of weapons of mass destruction is a very broad one under the statute and there is no impact on treatment there. the issue will be for the federal government to prove its case. guest: i have no nothing further. host: now to birmingham, alabama. a democrat. caller: was his son traveling with him when he was killed? and i need to make a comment. i want to ask that first. host: give it all it us because we might lose you on the line.
caller: the young man should be tried as an american citizen and he should be [inaudible]. i don't think he is an enemy combatant because he became a u.s. citizen in 2011. so he should be tried as a u.s. citizen. but if he was committing acts of terrorism and president barack obama smoked him out he should have been and he should not have put his son's in harm's way. i'm an american citizen. that broke my heart to know that we would be terrorized in our country by people that we let come in here as immigrants and i'm not against immigration reform, trust me. i'm an african-american and i understand it. but when we get people that want to kill us i'm sorry, that is necessary. have great day.
host: hina shamsi, she says alaki was putting his son in harm's way. what do you think about that? guest: i think that the son had no contact -- well, facts that we know show he had no contact with his father. he had again out looking for his father and didn't know where he was. he was killed by a drone strike when he was eating dinner at an outdoor restaurant with friends. host: a question for both of you. don't we have precedent for the bombers? >> we have president on both sides. -- president on both sides. we have used military tribunals and we have used criminal courts for terrorists on american soil
and abroad. there is a debate over which is better and whether you use both. at this point, both are probably appropriate in various situations for the time being. the military tribunals have not been terribly well designed, but they can be amended. i am not saying you should never use the courts. in this case, you will want to do that. my basic point is that you also want to get as much information from those who haven't. intelligence gathering is important. if we are refusing to get information by not asking questions of people when we can -- we are making a big mistake and we are sowing the seeds of future acts of terrorism. host: why it is important to hear whether the aclu believes it is a crime?
guest: it tells us a lot about why the aclu thinks of the various methods being used the bush administration and the obama administration. are amongse, drones them. if this is another method of fighting terrorism that he would not allow the government to use. guest: if you want to look at our website, we have a great deal of information about our work in this area. the use of force in some circumstances is necessary, it may be permitted when there is a comment -- a concrete and and and threats. in the context of an actual armed threats. our concern is when those boundaries are expanded and actions are taken that would be unlawful.
we also say women think the government has done the right thing. -- when we think the government has done the right thing. the federal government has done the exact right thing by as a federal crime that has to be the federal in criminal justice system. there is no basis to believe that the military is somehow better than our intelligence professionals and the fbi and other agencies. i think it does them a great disservice to the implied that spurred the military has its role in particular areas. trying to combine the two or confuse the two is one of the things that was a terrible mistake under the bush administration. it is a good thing the obama
administration is not making that mistake. host: with the aclu, she is a national security and project director. thank you so much. also thanks to you, president of the foundation for defense of democracy. he writes a weekly column. you can also read his writing online. thank you to you as well. thene of the problems when judges are appointed and the public defenders, a job is reliant on their approval. judges are drenched -- judged on their efficiency, how fast to the process cases, how quickly did they get to the docket. they will want a public defender of that goes along and gets along and does their bidding.
that is a real challenge. in new orleans, the system was that one public defender was assigned to one courtroom. they were always arguing before the same judge. they were trading clients. -- paying pain client client, if you let me spend a little time and take his case to trial, i will persuade this client to plead guilty. there was this trade-off going. it really made for a correct system down there. >> if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. on the right to free representation, sunday at 9:00. >> second prize winners in c-
span students cam competition. they attend eastern middle school in silver spring, maryland. their message to the president focuses on health care reform. ♪ >> in america, there are many people who do not have access to health care and are not able to receive the benefits. president obama is aiming to change this with the affordable care act. more commonly known as obamacare. healths a wide spanning care act intended to provide insurance. >> president obama health care reform plan and poses new regulations on medical insurance companies that prevent them from dropping sick clients and receiving people because of pre- existing conditions. it also requires all americans
to have health insurance or pay a tax starting in 2014 with the individual mandate. >> and other big part of obamacare is to expand access to affordable health care coverage. a lot of people were not covered by health care because their employer did not cover it to or was too expensive. >> people believe the law is fair believe that everyone should have health insurance. everyone should have an equal opportunity to access health care. they believe the reform will lower the cost of health insurance and improve the economy. feels industry in general that people need access to these products. they save lives, keep people healthy and out of expensive road to care. .eeps them out of hospitals >> it allows for younger people
to stay on their parents' insurance longer. for college students, taking five years, it allows them to be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they get a job that offers it. >> i am a strong supporter of the affordable care act because i think it does -- it provides more patient protection, it provides more affordable health care to poor -- to more people, it will begin to bring down the overall cost of health care. it provides people who are on medicare with additional benefits. they get free preventative care services. which we want to encourage. it provides seniors a little bit more help in paying for their prescription drugs. -- isse who oppose a lot
strongly disapprove of the government controlling their health care. >> why is the bill so in need of repealed? it will have a devastating impact on the american economy, on fiscal policy, on the quality of american health care, and non political discourse in the united states. there are a number of important elements in the new law around medicare payment reform that could help achieve better care at a lower cost. the challenge is for all of the reasons that bob discussed, these are not automatic and they will not be easy to implement. it will take some real changes in medicare processes and a change in how the rest of the health-care system and tracks with medicare. >> there were concerns that rationingwill mean health care to americans, and
giving them less than they paid for. we would start rationing care to people on their deathbed who would be apt to die. based on the fact that we have -- it does give rise to an important question. how will we contain health-care costs in this country? >> the cost of medicare, medicaid is skyrocketing. it is clearly not going to be sustainable. it is questionable whether the obamacare has provided the solution to the fundamental cost of health care. ideasy politicians have to replace obamacare. writes --r romney
>> recently, the supreme court upheld the affordable care act stating the federal government did have the power to tax those without health insurance, though it did not have the power to force people to buy health insurance. >> here is the danger when the federal level takes a position where they can tell someone what your day -- where does it stop? congress did not have authority to pass the affordable care act, it was beyond the limit of congress. they have arguments frequently heard was in congress can force you to purchase health insurance, is of the congress can force you to buy anything.
>> in president obama's next term, how do you think the president should address all of the debate concerning obamacare? >> there are still a lot of things that need to be put into place. >> the biggest challenge for keeping the pieces of it intact over time. >> the health care costs is growing and growing. all the procedures are being invented, all of the new drugs. that is great because it helps cure diseases. them, if cannot afford we have so many people who are
retirement age am receiving benefits, at some point, we have to make some choices about how can me curb those costs -- how can we curb those costs. >> we have to fully implement obamacare. there are important pieces that need to come into effect. we need to focus on implementing the existing lot in a way that accomplishes. >> how do we equalize cost and andmize cost to employers hospitals and the patience and the government? and make people feel safe in their quality of health? that is the challenge for president obama's next term in office. >> because of the controversy, the affordable care act is one of the most important issues that president obama should address in his next term. we desperately need to reform our current system.
by reforming the system into something we can all agree on, we can improve the economy and benefit all americans, even the ones who cannot currently afford health care. >> congratulations to all the winners in this year's competition. to see more winning videos, go to moments, comments on how furloughs are affecting air travel. in about half an hour, janet napolitano on the immigration bill proposed by a bipartisan group of senators. after that, i discussion of the obama administration's decision not to treat the boston marathon bombing suspect as an enemy combatants. >> a couple of sub committees hold hearings tomorrow on budget request. we will have live coverage on c-
span 3. a look of the federal aviation administration 2014 budget, that is live at 10:00. at 2:00, the army corps of engineers budget. both of those hearings live on c-span 3. >> the museum is meant to help a visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision making process that i went to u.s. president. we hope the museum inspires people to serve their community or their country some way. we really did not want to be a school. we wanted to be a -- i do not know if there is a lesson there. i do know that we decided to go any different direction apart from the museum with a
component from which programs would emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush library and museum. live thursday morning at 11:00 on c-span 3, c-span radio, and >> i walked into the kiosk, i am here to report. the guard came up and said, i knew one of your campaign managers and ohio. ok. the guards said, you have some hate mail. this is from california and massachusetts. you go through this most embarrassing part of the trip. and then i got into the intake, walked into prison, down into the courtyard, the warden will
not use the language -- get away from him, he confined his own way. i do not know where to go, another prisoner said, where is your escort? i did not know. some little guy yelled. he took me in the back way of laundry room. said,n sitting there and are you the congressmen? i used to be. are your republican? i said, the republicans put me in here, you know. i was the mayor of east cleveland. welcome, i will get you some clothes. sunday at 8:00 on c-span q &a. the federal aviation
administration to postpone employee furloughs and delayed plans to close air traffic control towers. he will hear their briefings with reporters over the next 20 minutes. after that, white house press secretary comments on the centers built. -- the senator's bill. good morning, everyone, thank you for joining us. this is a topic we have been engaged with for a very long time. as you may recall, we made an effort in the continuing resolution to make certain the issue of air traffic control towers was addressed. the administration announced the closing of more than 140 towers, we believe that is contrary to public safety and i believe is unnecessary for demonstration to take a position that they're
taking. -- for the administration to take the position they're taking. the amendment that we offered was designed to give them the flexibility to avoid the closing of air-traffic control towers. i made the plea -- ray lahoodlood to indicate his support for the amendment. the administration opposed the amendment. senator blumenthal and i had no senator who opposed this amendment. it was a bipartisan effort, but because of the administration's opposition, i assume that was never allowed to come to a senate vote. we believe the illustration has the ability to avoid closing air traffic control towers and i believe they should do that. in the absence of that, senator blumenthal and i have introduced
legislation to prohibit the closing of those air traffic control towers. the sponsorship and support for that legislation continues to grow. we introduced it a few days ago. already, we have 33 co-sponsors, 18 democrats members of cement, 15 republican members of the senate and support of the prohibition against the closing of those air-traffic control towers. we are looking for some common sense, some recognition that we have the ability to prioritize. i am a member of the senate appropriations committee and a member of the transportation subcommittee. the administrator was in our committee last thursday. with hiso satisfaction responses. he indicated to me -- my
question was, why is it a higher priority to reduce the funding for air traffic control towers as compared to finding balances in capital research's account? he did not have the authority to use those dollars. that is exactly what our amendment provided, the authority to use those dollars to use them to keep the tower is open. ae faa has concluded there is two month hiatus in the closing of the tower is due to lawsuits filed by number of airports. in the interim, that should give us the opportunity to pursue legislative remedy unless the administration comes to their senses and solve this problem without legislation. we are inquiring of chairman rockefeller. we hope the committee would consider this legislation. i will continue to encourage
both the chairman and ranking member to do exactly that. we have seen the latest manifestation of this issue in the furloughing of air traffic controllers. i could have no better allied, no firmer colleague dan senator bloom and salt. i ask -- i appreciate his help and support -- i could have no better ally, no former colleagues at senator: install. -- bloom and fall. >> -- blumenthal. >> i been proud to be a member of this team, which now includes senators from the states affected and many more will be affected. more than 40 states to run the country have these contract to airwhich are vital safety, but also to economic
development and jobs. what is at stake here is the that areir-traffic minimized or reduced, but also economic development in areas like new haven, for example. it is not just the light start flights or the organ transplants the fly and buy private planes, but the economic development with bioscience and medical research that is aided by the air force there that would be impacted by the closing of that aircraft control tower. this move has widespread implications in the regions that are affected and across the country in air